Community Development Board - 18 Feb 2020 - Minutes - PdfCommunity Development Board (CDB)
February 18, 2020
MINUTES
Community Development Board (CDB) Meeting
Tuesday, February 18, 2020 - 6:00 PM
Commission Chamber
Present: Linda Lanier, Member
Kirk Hansen, Chair
Brian Major, Member
Mark Tingen, Member
James Moyer, Member
Absent: Sylvia Simmons, Member
Jennifer Lagner, Member
Also Present: Brenna Durden, City Attorney (CA)
Brian Broedell, Principal Planner
Valerie Jones, Recording Clerk
Amanda Askew, Community Development Director
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chair Hansen.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Approved minutes of the January 21, 2020 regular meeting of the Community
Development Board.
3. OLD BUSINESS
A. SIGN CODE Chapter 17
Chair Hansen switched the agenda order due to the number of speakers for the
variance. This item was moved until after the variance.
STAFF REPORT: City Manager Shane Corbin addressed the Board. He spoke about
the Supreme Court case that caused the City to pause enforcement of the code for a
period of time. City Manager Corbin explained that the Staff began the process when
he was the Director and it has been a long process with several interruptions along the
way. He said the City would like to get this done and have clear rules put in place
before the upcoming political season.
Director Askew presented the information as explained in the staff report. She also
provided a PowerPoint presentation.
BOARD DISCUSSION: Mr. Major asked Ms. Durden what the spirit of the Supreme
Court ruling was. Ms. Durden said the Court was very clear about their concern for 1st
amendment rights and the fact that many sign codes around the country made a
distinction on the placement and size of a sign based on content. The Court found that
there was no legitimate purpose in identifying the size, time or place that you could
Page 1 of 5
Community Development Board (CDB)
February 18, 2020
have a sign based on content. Ms. Durden said this case arose out of temporary signs
associated with a church regarding parking, service times, etc. She said the spirit of the
Supreme Court ruling was to tell local governments that they can not regulate based on
content. However, cities can limit the number, size, and duration as long as the signs
are content neutral. Ms. Durden said that finding a legal balance has been a challenge.
She feels comfortable about the changes that Staff has made.
Mr. Tingen asked about the signage for store front windows. Director Askew said it
would be limited to 20 percent. Mr. Moyer asked about the bus stop signage. Director
Askew said the one on Atlantic Boulevard was in FDOT right-of-way and not in the
City. She said the one on Plaza would be limited to government-type signs. Ms.
Lanier asked for clarification on multi-family development signs. Director Askew said
that 3-units or more are currently allowed to have a sign and it is proposed to be
changed to 11-units or more. Ms. Lanier asked if this was comparable to other
municipalities. Director Askew said it was. She added that currently some of these
signs were installed by the developer and were placed in the right-of-way, this sign
code would eliminate that unless approved by Commission. Ms. Lanier asked about
banners and Director Askew said that would fall under temporary commercial signs.
Mr. Tingen asked if this code would apply to commercial vehicles parked in the right-
of-way. Director Askew said if a vehicle was wrapped in a sign that was more than 20
percent. She said that if the vehicle is regularly used in the conduct of business,
depending on where it is parked, it may not be able to be parked in that area. Director
Askew clarified that if, for example, there was a flag wrapped on a vehicle and it was
advertising a business it would be considered a sign but if it was just a patriotic gesture
it would be considered art. Ms. Lanier asked about a mural on the side of a building
that has the logo or name of the business on it. Director Askew said that would be
considered a sign whereas just a mural with no logos would be considered art. Mr.
Major asked about the people who hold and flip signs. Director Askew said that would
be considered freedom of speech, as long as that sign doesn't touch the ground. Mr.
Major asked why the City logo had to be removed. Director Askew said that the City
had considered changing the logo and if it's not changed in the Sign Ordinance then the
City would not be able to update the signs without a variance or changes to the Sign
Code.
MOTION: Recommend referral as written to the upcoming workshop with the City
Commission.
Motion: Linda Lanier
Second: James Moyer
Linda Lanier (Moved By) For
Kirk Hansen For
Brian Major For
Mark Tingen For
James Moyer (Seconded By) For
Motion passed 5 to 0.
Page 2 of 5
Community Development Board (CDB)
February 18, 2020
Ms. Lanier thanked the Staff for their hard work. Director Askew credited Planner Broedell for
his hard work. Mr. Moyer and Mr. Major agreed.
4. NEW BUSINESS
A. ZVAR20-0001 PUBLIC HEARING (Dave and Linda Kristoff)
Request for a variance to increase the maximum impervious surface allowed on a
residential lot to 69% to allow for the installation of a paver patio at 526 Selva Lakes
Circle (Lot 100 Selva Lakes Unit 2).
STAFF REPORT: Planner Broedell presented the information as explained in the
staff report. He also provided a PowerPoint presentation.
Mr. Moyer wanted to know if the percentage for impervious surface changed due to the
retention pond. Planner Broedell said it did not. Mr. Moyer asked if there had been
any flooding issues in the applicant's area. Planner Broedell said that a good portion of
the eastern side of the neighborhood is within the 100 year flood zone along Sherman
Creek which puts it at a greater risk of flooding.
Mr. Major asked if there were any run-off retention structures to retain water. Planner
Broedell said there were not.
PUBLIC COMMENT: Chair Hansen opened the Public Hearing.
Phil Heffner of 1034 Big Pine Key spoke in favor of variance request.
Helen Urban of 543 Pelican Key spoke against the variance request. She explained her
concerns and presented the Board with a detailed print out that explained her reasoning
along with photographs.
APPLICANT COMMENT: Linda Kristoff of 526 Selva Lakes Circle introduced
herself. She said that she and her husband are new to the area and bought this home to
retire. Ms. Kristoff said that the home was in disrepair inside and out. She said that
the patio was cracked so they decided to replace it with pavers, contracted the job and
began work. Ms. Kristoff did not realize she needed a permit for this type of work.
She applied for a permit, but it was denied due to the impervious surface exceeding the
allowed percentage. The job was nearly finished and the Kristoff's went ahead and had
the contractor complete the work.
BOARD DISCUSSION: Ms. Lanier asked Staff if due to the way the patio is built up
off of the ground, are the pavers considered pervious. Planner Broedell said that they
would not be considered pervious. Mr. Major asked about the retention pond. Director
Askew explained that whenever a subdivision is designed, there has to be storm water
retention. She said that they would have to go back and see what the calculations were
and whether they went above and beyond the 62% allowed for the entire subdivision.
Mr. Tingen asked about the Stop Work Order and why the work continued. Director
Askew explained that the applicant's came in, they were told to stop work with the
exception of moving pavers to prevent a trip hazard. The applicants were told that they
Page 3 of 5
Community Development Board (CDB)
February 18, 2020
would not be able to complete the job until they had gone through the variance process.
Director Askew said that the applicants have completed the installation of the pavers.
Mr. Moyer asked if the retaining wall was included in the calculations. Director
Askew said that Staff has not seen the retaining wall. Chair Hansen said that he went
and looks at the property and the impervious surface has increased. He said that the
impervious surface was already over the limit and he would have a hard time granting a
variance for more. Ms. Lanier said that even though it is obvious other homes in the
neighborhood are over the impervious limit, doesn't give the Board a reason to approve
this variance. Mr. Major asked if the code addressed homes next to retention ponds and
the mathematical calculations in connection with what is in place right now. Director
Askew said that Staff depends on engineers to provide these calculations. She said the
previous pond did allow for a certain volume but she was not sure of how much extra
was included to accommodate extra drainage. Mr. Major asked if there was language
in the code that would allow the current requirement to be superseded by that design.
Director Askew said there was not.
APPLICANT COMMENT: Linda Kristoff asked if the fact that some neighbors have
longer driveways, front patios, side patios and back patios plays into this. Chair
Hansen said that the code allows 45% and the applicant is at 62% which was
grandfathered in. They could have kept the patio as it was and there would have been
no need for a variance. Ms. Kristoff asked if she could file a continuance. Chair
Hansen said that was not up to the Board.
MOTION: To deny ZVAR20-0001 request for a variance to increase the maximum
impervious surface since it does not meet any of the grounds for approval.
Motion: Linda Lanier
Second: Mark Tingen
Linda Lanier (Moved By) For
Kirk Hansen For
Brian Major For
Mark Tingen (Seconded By) For
James Moyer For
Motion passed 5 to 0.
5. REPORTS
6. PUBLIC COMMENT
7. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further discussion, Chair Hansen declared the meeting adjourned at 7:14 p.m.
Attest:
Page 4 of 5
Community Development Board (CDB)
February 18, 2020
Amanda Askew Kirk Hansen, Chair
Page 5 of 5