Loading...
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