Loading...
10-19-21 CDB Adopted Minutesesent: Also Present: MINUTES Community Development Board (CDB) Meeting Tuesday, October 19, 2021 - 6:00 PM Commission Chamber Linda Lanier, Member Jennifer Lagner, Member Kirk 1 Ianseii. C1)13 Chair James Moyer, 'Member Sylvia Simmons. Member Richard Schooling, Member Jeli' llaynie, Member Filen Golombek, Alternate Member Brenna Durden, City Attorney (.CA Amanda Askew. Planning and Community Development Director P('l Valerie Jones. Recording Clerk Ahrielle Genesi. Planner CALL TO ORDER AND R01..,L CALL The meeting was called to order at 6:0(1 p.m. by ('hair 1 lansen. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Approve minutes of the September 21, 2021 regular meeting of the Community Development Board. MOTION: To APPROVI:. the minutes of the September 21. 2021 regular meeting of the Community Development Board. Afotion: Jeff Haynie Second: Jennifer Lagner Linda Lanier For Jennifer Lagner (Seconded By) For Ilattsen For James Illoyer For Sylvia Sinnnon.s° For Richard Schooling For Jeff Haynie (Moved By) For Motion passed 7 to h. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. Community Development Board tC1)1D October 19, 2021 Page 1 of 7 4. NEW BUSINESS A. 705 Atlantic Boulevard ZVAR21-0015 (Seminole South LLC) Request for a variance from Section 17-29 (c)(1)(a) to exceed the maximum freestanding sign height and Section 17-42 (7) to allow a roof sign OR a variance from Section 17-29 (c)(1)(a) to exceed the maximum freestanding sign height and Section 17-29 (c)(2) to reduce the minimum 5 -foot setback from the property line for an alternative location. STAFF REPORT: Director Askew presented the information as explained in the stall' report, She also provided a PowerPoint. presentation. Mr. Schooling asked ifthe second option for the sign placement would lit into the 8 loot requirement or was the applicani seeking a variance from that as \veil. Director Askew confirmed that the applicant was looking for a variance from the setback and the height. Ms. Simmons asked why the sign was going to be placed on the roof instead of on the ground as a monument sign. f)irector Askew said that would be a question .1Or the applicant. APPLICANT COMMENT: Zach Miller of 3203 ()Id Barn (1.'ourt. Ponce Vedra introduced himself as representing Seminole South. Ile said the reason for the height variance was to place the sign 011 the roof or place the sign 011 the western property line. Mr. Miller said the monument sign \vasn't considered because it would either take away 1-2 parking spaces or it would be a sight issue for people leaving the gas station next door. Mr. Miller gave a presentation explaining the request pointing out the lack of impervious surface for placement of a monument sign, along with obstructing the view, taking up parking spaces, inability to meet the setbacks and creating a safety hazard. Ile said the code allows 96 square feet of signage but they arc not able to exercise that right anywhere on the property without the need for some type of variance. Mr. Moyer asked ifthe variance was granted would the existing signs on the facia or the roof (marquee) be removed. Mr. Miller said they would not he removed. Ms. Simmons wondered why there was a need for a sign since this property did not have a monument sign for over 30 years and the marquee signs were very clear at identifying the businesses located at the property. Ms. Lanier asked about the parking. Director Askew explained that the required parking spaces were 27 and there are approximately 35 on the sight. She said that several of the parking spaces are ill the right of way. Ms. Lanier asked if the applicant had considered placing the sign in one of those locations. Mr. Miller pointed out the property line and how the sign wouldn't meet the setbacks or it wouldn't be visible. Mr. 1 laynie had the same question as Ms. Simmons as to the need for a sign at all. Mr. Miller said that need didn't enter into the equation since it was the applicant's right according to Ole code to have a sign. There was further discussion about a monument sigil and how it might create a safety hazard by blocking sight. PU (O\1I1 ENT: Chair 1 Iansen opened the floor to public comment. There being no public continents Chair 'Jansen closed the floor. BOARD DISCUSSION: Ms. Lagner asked about another monument sign at another business. Director Askew. said that she would have to research it. Mr. 1.1aynie said he community Development Board (COB) October 19, 2021 Page 2 of 7 CO11VDICC(.1 that there wasn't a way to put a compliant sign on the property. Ms. Lanier agreed and said the parking spaces might he an alternative. Mr. Moyer pointed out the ahundance of signage on the property windows and the marquee. Ms. Simmons said she wasn't happy with the two options and Would not be in favor of approval. Mr. Miller asked the Board if they could vote tOr a withdrawal of the application so that they could file a new application and not. have to wait another year. MOTION: To ACCFPT applicant's desire to withdraw' the application of ZVAR21-00 I 5 Motion: Linda Lanier Second: Jennifer Lagner Linda Lanier (Moved By) For Jennifer Lagner (Seconded B)'For Kirk Hansen For James Moyer For Sylvia Simmons For Richard Schooling For Jeff Haynie For Motion passed 7 to 0. B. 1505 Park Terrace East MA1121-0016 (David Andrews) Request for a variance to the platted Building Restriction Line (BRL) at 1505 Park Terrace East. STAFF REPORT: Planner enest presented the information as explained in the Starr report. She also provided a PowerPoint presentation. Mr. Schooling asked ‘vhat the height limit on the detached structure was. Planner Genesi. said it was 15 feet in this zoning district. Ms. Lanier asked Staff point out where the fence was located. Director Askew said that it Wi.ISTfl located on the survey. Nis. Lanier asked for clarification on which side of the property was the "front" yard. Director Askew said that the code defines the front yard as the narrowest portion that faces the street, which would he Seminole Road even though the address is Park 'Ierrace Fast. The code allows Staff to interpret that when a house is already built. She explained that the applicant was seeking a variance from the 35 foot BRI, which is the platted restriction line and default to the zoning district setback of 10 feet. APPLICANT (...')MMENT: David Andrew's introduced himself as the owner of 1505 Park Terrace Ile explained that he wants to build the structure as a home office since he works Imin home and that it would not have plumbing. Mr. Andrews explained. that. the structure would he approximately 12 feet over the building restriction line. Ile explained that there were 2 live oaks preventing him front locating the proposed structure closer to the pool. unmunity Development Board (CDB) October 19, 2021 Page 3 of 7 Mr. Hansen asked about the existing patio on the north side of the pool. He said that it looked like there would he enough room to build on and have plenty of room to spare. Mr. Andrews said that area .was the only area for entertaining .family and friends and there is a garden in there. Mr. Haynie asked where the fence was located. Mr. Andrews pointed it out on the survey. He said there is additional right of way beyond the 35 feet buildingrestriction line. Mr. Andrews cited 2 other cases that were approved by the Board this year with similar conditions. Ms. Lagner wanted to know about the height of the proposed structure. Mr. Andrew's said it would be confOrming and estimated it would he approximately 10-12 feet high. Ms. Durden recommended that the term detached structure or home office be used instead of guest house ifthe Board decided to approve. SIie said that the condition should include no plumbing and the Board should establish a specific distance beyond the 35 feet and not leave it open ended. Mr. Hansen asked if the Boardshould he determining a change in a BRL as opposed to all the other people that need to sign off on it. Ms. burden said she knows that the City is required to enlbrce RRI.'s according to the code. She said that the Board could take a 5 minute break and she could speak to 1)irector Askew or they could ask the applicant to defer for one month. Ms. Durden said another option would he for the applicant to have his property re -platted. Director Askew said 24-17 in the definitions (tithe Land Development Regulations defines RRL's shall mean the lines extending across the front, sides and/or rear of the lot or property as depicted 011 a platted lot of record. Building should he contained within the BRL's. BRL's which may require a greater building setback than the minimum yard requirement. of the applicable zoning district and which have been recorded upon final subdivision plat approved and accepted by the City Staff shall he enforceable by the City. Ms. Durden said that typically you would have to replat a Whole subdivision or ask applicants to replat their individual parcel. Chair 1.hmsen asked the applicant if he would like to defer until the City can get a clear answer front Ms. Durden. The applicant said that since there ‘vas precedence front the variance that the Board had approved at their February and September meetings then why is there a question now. Ms. Simmons asked for clarity on the grounds for the variance request and Director Askew told her to look on page 35 of the agenda packet.. Mr. Haynie asked if the Board could deny the variance but allow the applicant to reapply without waiting for a year. The applicant said he would prefer to not have a denial on the hooks and asked if Director Askew and Ms. Durden could go ahead and meet to figure out how to legally proceed. The Board agreed and held a 10 minute recess. Following the recess Ms. Durden said it is Director Askew's interpretation that because the City can enforce the BRL then she can also authorize an application for a variance. Ms. burden said that she recommends the Board go ahead and hear the variance at this time. She said the I3oard is authorized to lake action on the variance application according to the criteria that was presented. Ms. Durden said that she will talk to the City Manager at some future titne. The Applicant added that his neighbors are in favor (tithe variance and there were several in the audience who were there to support him. Com m unity Development Board (CDB) October 19, 2021 Page 4 of 7 PUBLICCOMMENT: Chair Ilansen opened the floor to public comment. I„)oug Widen of 1535 Park Terrace East introduced himself and he spoke in favor of the variance. Ile said that due to the large tree canopy the detached structure would hardly be noticeable. There being, no further public comments Chair I lansen closed the floor. BOARD DISCUSSION: Mr. 1 laynie said he didn't see a condition for approval of the variance but Would agree to waive the 1 year for the applicant to reapply with a different option. Mr. Schooling said his main concern that there wasn't a definite measurement as to how far over the URI. the structure would he. Ms. Lanier agreed with Mr. Haynie and thought there were other options that would work. IVIs, Simmons said she wasn't comfortable ‘vith not knowing the exact size of the proposed structure and didn't see any grounds lOr approval. MOTION: To DENY ZVAR21-0016 with a waiver of the 1 year restriction for the applicant to return with a different variance. Motion: •11T Haynie Second: James Moyer Ms. Simmons said she wasn't comfortable with the 1 year waiver and would prefer the applicant withdraw the application. The applicant said he would like to withdraw and return at a later time. Motion passed unanimously 5 to 0. MOTION: To ACCEPT the applicant's request to withdraw the application. Motion: Linda Lanier Second: Jennifer Lagner Linda Lanier (Moved By) For Jennifer Lagner (Seconded By) For Kirk Hansen For James Moyer For Sylvia Simmons For Richard Schooling For Jeff !bowie For Motion passed 7 to 0. 1618 Beach Avenue ZVAR21-0017 (Barbara and Richard Levine) Request for a variance from Section 23-33 to reduce the mitigation owed for removal of 6 palm trees. STAFF REPORT: Planner Genesi. explained that this was the first time the Community Development Board was hearing a variance under the Chapter 23 update. She then Community Development Board (CDB) October 19, 2021 Page 5 o17 presented the information as explained in the stall report. She also provided a PowerPoint presentation. Ms. Lanier asked if the liriopes at the loot of the palm trees could he a trip hazard and not the trees. Planner (ienest said that the arborist deemed the palms as the trip hazard in his letter. APPLICANT COMMENT: The applicant, Barbara Levine, introduced herself and her husband Richard. She gave a little history about moving to Atlantic Beach and explained how she cleared a lot of underbrush. Mrs. Levine explained some medical reasons for the trees being a trip hazard on the south side of the driveway. She said she would like to extend her handicap ramp and this would require removing the palm trees. Mrs. Levine also explained she vanted to remove the 2 palm trees at the side of house to add a gate. She said there is nowhere for her to put the 37 inches of required mitigated trees. Mrs. Levine said that she has a lot of support from the neighborhood. PUBLIC COMMENT: Chair liansen opened the floor to public comment. Bill 1.3assett of 1616 Beach Avenue introduced himself. Ile said he has witnessed the applicants attempting, to get out of their car and it is very difficult for them. 'there being no further public comments Chair Ilansen closed the floor. BOARD DISCUSSION: Mr. Schooling said that he looked at the property and can see 110W it would he difficult to put in the amount of mitigation that is required. Ile also felt that the mitigation lee was very high. Ms. Simmons agreed that the mitigation :lee was extremely' high. Ms. Lanier said she doesn't see any grounds for approval of the variance when she looks at the 4 options. Mr. Haynie agreed that there wasn't any basis for approval. Mr. Schooling asked if replacement of the trees was like -for -like. Director Askew said it was species specific and depends on the size of the trees being removed. Ms. Lagner asked what a maritime species tree Was. Director Askew said they are hardwoods (oaks, magnolias, elms, etc.) that provide the largest canopy. MOTION: To ZVAR21-0017 due to the lack of grounds for approval. Alotion: Linda Lanier Second: Jeff Haynie Linda Lanier (Moved By) For Jennifer Lagner For Kirk Hansen For James Ilkver For Sylvia Simmons For Richard Schooling For Jeff Haynie (Seconded By) For Motion passed 710 O. Community Development Board ((DB) October 19, 2021 Page 6 o17 REPORTS Sarah Boren gave a presentation on the Community Action Plan. She provided a PowerPoint presentation that showed the Board how to access and navigate the survey. Ms. Boren explained that the Environmental Stewardship Committee took on the LI 1I re-certitication. She said the next step is to provide an action plan by taking all the proven strategies Iron the rating system, goals tOr the future and timelines to provide a starting point for the community. Ms. Boren said they have approval from the City Commission to go out into the community with a survey that they prepared. She said they would like to test it on the Board and possible long term engagement through ibcus groups. Ms. Boren said they will use social media. knock on doors, offer hard copies at the community centers in an eftbrt to reach people that are not usually heard. 6. Pl..1111.,IC COMMENT There were no public comments. 7. AD.101.../INMEN1' 'there being no further discussion, (...'hair 1 Iansen declared the meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Attest: ICA liansen, ("hair Community Development Board (CDB) October 19, 2021 Page 7 oU7