2006-04-18 (meeting minutes) vMinutes of Apri118, 2006, Community Development Board Meeting
MINUTES OF THE
REGULAR MEETING OF
THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
April 18, 2006
A regular meeting of the Community Development Board was held on Tuesday, April 18, 2006, in the
City Hall Commission Chambers. Present were Chairman Sam Jacobson, Lynn Drysdale, Craig
Burkhart, Dave MacInnes, Carolyn Woods, Chris Lambertson, Community Development Director
Sonya Doerr, and Recording Secretary Kerri Cunningham. Steve Jenkins was absent.
1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance.
The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes from the regular meeting of March 21, 2006.
Mr. Burkhart made a motion, seconded by Ms. Woods to approve the minutes of the regular
meeting of March 21, 2006. The motion carried unanimously.
3. Recognition of Visitors. No persons spoke at this time.
4. Old Business. There was no Old Business to discuss.
5. New Business.
5a. Request from Gil Phillips to consider the Third Street side of a lot as the front of the lot
(corner lot) rather than the Sherry Drive side for property at 390 Third Street.
Gil Phillips, 331 Seventh Street, introduced himself as the applicant and reviewed his request to install
a 6-foot fence along the Sherry Drive side of his home at 390 Third Street. He indicated that the home
was originally built with the front door on Third Street but the original platting denotes Sherry Drive as
the front street. He acknowledged that City Code permits a 4-foot fence, but since his home is elevated
6-feet off the ground, a 4-foot fence would defeat the purpose of a privacy fence. He requested a
change in the to designate Third Street as the front of the lot so that he could be permitted to install a
six-foot fence along Sherry Drive. Ms. Woods raised concerns regarding whether replatting the
property was part of the request. Ms. Doerr advised that this was a request only to interpret the Third
Strre side of the lot as the front and only for the purpose of fence placement, and that a fence permit
application would be needed. Chairman Jacobson questioned the need for a fence considering that the
house is up for sale. Mr. Phillips responded that the fence would add value and be cosmetically
appealing to the buyer and community.
Kevin Byrnes, 391 Eighth Street, asked questions regarding the allowable fence height for the property
sides on Third and Sherry.
Minutes of April 18, 2006, Community Development Board Meeting
A motion was made by Mr. MacInnes and seconded by Mr. Lambertson to recommend approval
of the request to interpret the front of the lot as Third Street for the purpose of fence
construction only, subject to the condition that the fence could be 4-feet solid with the remaining
2-feet to be "open air or decorative material".
The Board continued to have discussion and address concerns of future platting issues. The vote was
called. The motion to approve failed by a tied 3-3 vote.
Sb. ZVAR-2006-01, Bryan and Leah Barker. Request for a Variance to allow a nonconforming
structure to be reconstructed in the existing footprint for property within the RS-2 Zoning
District and located at 620 Beach Avenue.
Brian Barker, 1225 Selva Marina Circle, introduced himself as the property owner of 620 Beach
Avenue. Mr. Barker distributed some elevation drawings and reviewed his request for a variance to
allow the construction of a nonconforming structure at 620 Beach Avenue. He indicated that the
proposed structure would reduce impervious surface area. Mr. Barker proposed that their request
would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan by maintaining the City's distinct residential
community character and by not adversely impacting any aspects of the welfare of the community.
Chairman Jacobson asked for comments from the audience. Mike Witherspoon, 679 Ocean Boulevard,
acknowledged knowing the Barkers and supported their request. The following residents also spoke in
"° support of the Barkers' request: John Fletcher, 672 Ocean Boulevard; Buddy Wooten, 172 Sixth
Street; and Kevin Byrnes, 391 Eighth Street. The Chairman asked the Board for their comments or
questions. Ms. Woods made a disclaimer that she was biased as she was involved in the sale of the
property to the Barkers, specifically in hopes that the property would be developed as the Barkers are
requesting. Ms. Woods believed the proposed request would fit in well with the Community Character
initiative of the City. Chairman Jacobson asked if the duplex on the property would be demolished.
Mr. Barker replied that it would be. Board member Lambertson expressed his support for the request.
Harley Parkes, 1838 Seminole Road, introduced himself as the architect for the project. He commented
that the proposed project was designed to maintain the community's character. Chairman Jacobson
asked for a motion and stated for the record that there is considerable precedent for approving variances
for nonconforming property in that area where the nonconformity is not being worsened by the
approval.
A motion was made by Ms. Woods and seconded by Mr. MacInnes to recommend approval of
ZVAR-2006-01, a request for a variance to allow a nonconforming structure to be reconstructed
in the existing footprint, and as shown on the site for property within the RS-2 Zoning District
and located at 620 Beach Avenue. The motion was approved unanimously.
Sc. Discussion of 35-foot height limitation language to be considered as a vote referenda
amendment to the City Charter.
Sonya Doerr, Community Development Director, updated the Board on the status of the 35-foot height
limit referendum amendment and reviewed the proposed possible language for the ordinance that
would need to adopted to start the process to amend the City Charter by voter action. Ms. Woods
2
Minutes of April 18, 2006, Community Development Board Meeting
expressed concerns with the 35-foot height limit in the commercial district. Ms. Doerr responded that
currently only non-habitable space, and certain architectural design elements are allowed above 35-feet
in the commercial districts, and then only if approved by the Commission.
The Board discussed how the Charter amendment might affect the Sea Turtle Inn, and discussed the
uniqueness of this one property and what special provisions that might be needed to address the Sea
Turtle property. Ms. Doerr pointed out that the proposed language would identify the existing Sea
Turtle property by legal description and provide an exception to allow the existing hotel properly to
redevelop at its existing height. The Board discussed potential effects of the referendum on Mayport
Road's commercial district. Ms. Woods expressed concerns with allowing the Sea Turtle Inn to expand
on the remainder of their property to some height above 35-feet, that is not now developed above the
35-foot height limit, if the Charter was amended.
A motion was made by Ms. Woods and seconded by Mr. Lambertson to support the proposed
language as written for an ordinance calling for a referendum to amend Section 59 the Charter
and for language to protect the right for the Sea Turtle Inn to rebuild the existing hotel structure
at its current height, but to limit the height of any new buildings or structures or future
expansion to the 35-foot height limit and to meet all other codes that might be in effect at the time
of any future expansion. The motion passed by a 5:1 vote with Chairman Jacobson dissenting.
Sd. Reconsideration of Community Development Board's recommendation related to proposed
revisions to Section 24-189 of the Land Development Regulations related to the approval
process for two-lot divisions of property. (At the request of Mayor Wolfson.)
Sonya Doerr, Community Development Director, mentioned that she had distributed to the Board some
correspondence from Mayor Wolfson received this morning, addressing this item. She provided the
background on this issue and explained the Replat Exemption ordinance. She advised that the Mayor's
intent was to have the CD Board and the Commission process a replat exemption request similar to that
used for aUse-by-Exception, where such requests would come before the CD Board; the CD Board
would make a recommendation to the Commission, and the City Commission would take final action
on the request.
Carolyn Woods motioned to recommend to the Commission that lot divisions of any type come to the
Community Development Board for a recommendation to the Commission. Chairman Jacobson
advised that he believed that a new motion had to be made by a Board member on the prevailing side of
their original motion on the issue. Ms. Woods acknowledged that she was not on the prevailing side of
this matter when previously considered by the CD Board. Ms. Doerr continued to explain the current
status of the Code regarding lot divisions and indicated that there would not be a large number of these
lot division requests as there are few lots large enough to meet the size requirements for such lot
divisions. The Board discussed the information presented in the memo from the Mayor and the
Commission meeting minutes. Chairman Jacobson believed that the issue was referred back to the
Board for a decision on which type of review process should be applied to these two-lot division
requests. Ms. Doerr explained the procedures through which lot divisions creating more than two lots
are currently reviewed by the CD Board, either through the platting or re-platting process, and advised
that the CD Board now and has always been required to make a recommendation as part of these
~/""` procedures. The Board discussed the possible effects and results of the various processes.
3
Minutes of April 18, 2006, Community Development Board Meeting
Resident Kevin Byrnes, 391 Eighth Street, made comments addressing the minutes from a meeting on
March 8, 2004.
Chairman Jacobson motioned to recommend that requests for two-lot divisions come before the
Community Development Board for final action, subject to the applicant's right to appeal the CD
Board's decision to the City Commission. Mr. Burkhart seconded the motion and it passed by a
4:2 vote, with Chris Lambertson and Dave MacInnes dissenting.
Chairman Jacobson brought up the Winter and Company consultant and suggested that the board
recruit or organize a group of architects and builders to look at what is recommended and advise the
board on the Community Character project. The Board discussed and agreed with this idea.
The meeting adjourned at 9:15 pm.
Signed
Attest
4