Loading...
2008-02-19 (meeting minutes) vMinutes of the February 19, 2008 regular meeting of the Community Development Board 3 r ~~ J sif "' l j .: f) ~r r~~; MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD February 19, 2008 A regular meeting of the Community Development Board was convened at 7:02 pm on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 in the Commission Chambers, located at 800 Seminole Road in Atlantic Beach. In attendance were Board Members Blaine Adams, David Boyer, Lynn Drysdale, Ellen Glasser, Kirk Hansen, Chairman Chris Lambertson, Community Development Director Sonya Doerr, Staff Planner Erika Hall, and City Attorney Alan Jensen. Board member Joshua Putterman was absent, and the position of Recording Secretary is currently vacant. 1. CALL TO ORDER. Chairman Chris Lambertson called the meeting to order at 7:02 pm. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Motion to approve the minutes of the January 15, 2008 meeting by David Boyer; seconded by Kirk Hansen; no further discussion; vote was unanimous. 3. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS. There were no visitors present at the beginning of the meeting, though Commissioner John Fletcher later arrived and was recognized. 4. OLD BUSINESS. There was no old business for consideration. 5. NEW BUSINESS. ITEM S.a. UBE-2008-01. Safar. Reauest for aUse-bv-Exception to Hermit fuel sales limited to six fueling positions in coniunction with an existing convenience store located within the Commercial Limited (CL) Zoning District at 1197 Mayport Road. Ms. Doerr introduced the application, explaining that this was an existing convenience store that previously had fuel sales. She told the Board that both the Director of Public Works and the Director of Public Utilities have reviewed the proposal and have no issues other than maintaining safety at the Plaza and Mayport Road intersection. The Director of Public Safety has requested that a traffic engineer conduct a review of the site. She noted that the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) would most probably not need to review the project because it is an existing site and the applicant is not requesting a reconfiguration of access. Ms. Doerr also noted that she had included a recommended condition in her staff report -that the applicant be required to provide an access management plan prepared by a certified traffic engineer, and that needed improvements to the driveways would require approval by the Director of Public Works, and they must be completed prior to the commencement of the requested use, if recommended by the Community Development Board (CDB) and approved by the City Commission. Minutes of the February 19, 2008 regular meeting of the Community Development Board Chris Lambertson asked for clarification of the Use-by-Exception process. Ms. Doerr explained that unlike Variances, the CDB does not make the final decision on Use-by-Exception applications. Rather, they must establish findings of fact supportive of a recommendation of approval or denial to the City Commission. That recommendation is then forwarded to the Commission, which makes a final decision at a subsequent public meeting. Mr. Lambertson opened the floor to the applicant, Anton Safar, who stated that he had nothing to add to Ms. Doerr's comments regarding the application. No other members of the audience wished to address the application, so Mr. Lambertson closed this portion of the hearing and opened the discussion to the Board. David Boyer noted that Public Works was recommending that traffic only exit the property with a right turn onto Mayport, and he would like to see that condition included in the motion. Ms. Doerr stated that this was not a negotiable condition, but an effect of the Mayport Road Median project that has already been planned and approved. Thus, a right turn will be the only option once the medians are constructed. Kirk Hansen asked if the plan was drawn to scale, to which the applicant responded yes. Mr. Hansen also noted that there are two buildings shown on the plan and asked if the applicant owns both, to which he also responded yes. Blaine Adams asked about resurfacing and landscaping requirements, to which Ms. Doerr replied that this project probably would not trigger the requirement for a new landscape plan, but that this would be determined as part of the permitting process. Ms. Doerr reiterated that this was an existing convenience store that had previously had tanks, but they had been removed some time ago. Now, the applicant seeks to have new tanks installed and resume fuel sales. Ms. Doerr noted that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) regulates this process. The contractor for the project confirmed the scope of work being done. MOTION: David Boyer made a motion to recommend approval to the City Commission of this requested Use-by-Exception (UBE-2008-01) to permit fuel sales limited to six fueling positions in conjunction with an existing convenience store for property located within the Commercial Limited (CL) Zoning District and located at 1197 Mayport Road. This motion to recommend approval is based upon findings of fact that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive plan, compatible with other surrounding development along this portion of Mayport Road, and complies with the requirements of Section 24-63 of the Land Development Regulations. Further, this recommendation of approval is conditioned upon the applicant providing an access management plan prepared by a properly certified traffic engineer, and attaining final inspection approval from the Director of Public Works for needed driveway improvements prior to commencement of recommended use, as well as the incorporation of right-turn only exit from the property. Blaine Adams seconded the motion. There was no further discussion and the vote was unanimous. Page 2 of 9 Minutes of the February 19, 2008 regular meeting of the Community Development Board ITEM 5.b. ZVAR-2008-02, Demuth. Request for Variance from Section 24 151(e) to reduce the required front yard setback from 20-feet to 19-feet, six inches, the rear yard setback from 10-feet to 5-feet, and a side yard setback from 10-feet to 2-feet. six inches on the north side, for the construction of a detached two-car garage on a Nonconforming Lot of Record tied to the main uarcel. located at 1917 Beach Avenue Ms. Doerr introduced the application explaining this was an odd non-conforming lot located west of the Beach Avenue right-of--way, and tied to an oceanfront lot. She noted that most other lots like this, similarly tied to oceanfront lots, had been granted variances. Mr. Lambertson opened the floor to the applicant. J.W. Terry Simmons, architect for the Demuths, represented the application. Mr. Simmons stated that the proposal was the best scenario to maintain the front yard setback, so as to be in line with the structure on the adjacent property. He noted that many of these nonconforming lots, originally intended for garages, had been built with single-family dwellings. Mr. Lambertson opened the floor to public comment. R.D. DeCarle, 51 Beach Avenue, stated that neighbors are supportive of the intended use. No one else from the audience wished to address the application, so Mr. Lambertson closed the floor to public comment and opened discussion by the Board. Ms. Glasser noted that while she did not see a public notice posted on this property either, Mr. DeCarle had addressed her concern regarding how the neighbors felt about the proposal. Mr. Boyer said that he had not seen a public notice either, to which Ms. Doerr replied that both properties had been posted on the same day. She noted that there had been high winds in the interim though. Mr. Boyer said that the lot, as it currently exists, is an eyesore. Even though the applicant is requesting a variance reducing the north side yard from 10' to 2', Beachside Community's walkway access is directly north of the property line, and that lends a sense of openness. Mr. Simmons added that the owners have already planted a couple of Oaks and will also be landscaping the property. MOTION: David Boyer made a motion to approve this request for Variance (ZVAR-2008- 02) to reduce the required front yard setback from 20-feet to 19-feet, six inches, the required north side yard setback from 10-feet to 2-feet, six inches, and the required rear yard setback from 10-feet to 5-feet, for the construction of a two-car detached private garage on a Nonconforming Lot of Record tied to the main parcel, as shown on the site plan submitted with this application, for the property located at 1917 Beach Avenue. Kirk Hansen seconded the motion. There was no further discussion and the vote was unanimous. Page 3 of 9 Minutes of the February 19, 2008 regular meeting of the Community Development Board ITEM S.c. Recommendation to the City Commission related to a proposed revision to Section 24-172 of the Land Development Regulations. Residential Development Standards, to eliminate Section (c)(1)i.-iv., the F1oorArea Ratio provisions Ms. Doerr reviewed the concept of Floor Area Ratio (FAR) as included in the Residential Development Standards. She explained that majority of the current City Commission has expressed a desire to remove this particular provision from Section 24-172. However, because the Community Development Board serves as the Local Planning Agency, a recommendation must originate from the CD Board, and it must be based upon a finding that such revision would not be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and further, that such revision would not make the remaining Residential Development Standards inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. As such, the City Commission directed staff to bring this issue back to the CDB for their recommendation and then to continue with the process. Mr. Lambertson asked what are the typical sizes of Atlantic Beach lots, to which Ms. Doerr replied that "typical" lots range are 5000 square feet, 6500 square feet, 7500 square feet in size. Mr. Lambertson opened the floor to public comment. Peggy Nolan, 879 East Coast Drive, stated that her lot is 60 feet by 85 feet [5100 square feet], which is considered Nonconforming. She said that removal of the FAR provision would allow houses that would overwhelm such lots. Mr. Boyer asked Ms. Doerr: were not lots smaller than 5000 square feet considered as if they were actually 6000 square feet? Ms. Doerr replied that this provision had been removed during an amendment to the original ordinance. There was some discussion amongst the Board as to when this occurred. Commissioner John Fletcher, 672 Ocean Boulevard, who had been in the audience, asked to speak to the matter. He stated that when the original ordinance was submitted, the FAR was .54. However, after the Community Character study was concluded, it was decided that that was too restrictive, and the ordinance was after several changes, finally amended to the current FAR of .60. At the same time, the small size lot consideration was eliminated. R.D. DeCarle, 51 Beach Avenue, identified himself a local realtor, and said that he had attended and participated in most all of the Community Character meetings. He confirmed that the FAR was originally .54, but it was soon after amended to .60 and the trade off was the removal of the special consideration for small lots. Mr. DeCarle said that he was in favor of removing the FAR, primarily because it is redundant of other restrictions. Beyond that, he said the standards collectively restrict creativity, and as a result, people looking to build tend to avoid Atlantic Beach. In particular, he expressed concern that architectural diversity is sacrificed with the limitation of a 22-foot high wall plate. No one else from the audience came forth to speak so Mr. Lambertson closed the floor to the public and opened discussion to the Board. Page 4 of 9 Minutes of the February 19, 2008 regular meeting of the Community Development Board Ms. Glasser said that she felt the one good thing about this was that the Board was only being asked to look at FAR. She said it was interesting though that it came back to the CDB when it was already known how the City Commission was going to vote. Ms. Glasser [who was not a CDB member at the time] noted that it had been the CDB that had reviewed all of the information originally. She also commented that as a resident, she had been intimidated by the numbers and the whole process, and by those who were so vocal during the public hearings. She said that she felt that no compromise had truly been offered and that the community remains split. The CDB originally voted 4-3 to recommend a FAR of .7, but the number was lowered substantially and then a bit again by the City Commission. She proposed the current CDB reconsider and recommend a compromise of .70 again. Mr. Boyer said that the original recommendation of the consultant was .46, and that he personally think that the .60 FAR is so high that it is meaningless. He stated that not a single application has been affected by this regulation. However, he said that he thinks the FAR should be kept as a fall back position. Mr. Boyer continued, saying that he felt Commissioner Woods recommendation of being able to choose whether to abide by the other Residential Development Standards, or alternatively, by the FAR alone, was a vast step in the wrong direction. He said his predilection was to further reduce the FAR. Otherwise, he desired to maintain it as it is. Lynn Drysdale agreed with Mr. Boyer's sentiments. She explained that many regulations were simultaneously enacted, and there was no rationale as to why there was a focus on this one in particular other than emotion. Ms. Drysdale said that because she felt the body of residential design regulations had not been thoroughly tested, she was leaning towards further investigation. Mr. Adams said that his personal feeling was that FAR was merely an extra level of government inserting itself into the development process, and that he thinks there are other control mechanisms in place. Mr. Hansen said that there are many elements to consider. First, going through the process and looking at the models upheld as desirable examples at the Community Character study, the question arises could these be built again, under current regulations? It would appear not. Second, the overall square foot difference of the maximum size of house that could be built with or without the FAR does not seem to be large enough that it should cause such dissension. Thus, he said he is in favor of removing the FAR provision. Mr. Lambertson expressed concern over the wall plate height issue as brought up earlier by Mr. DeCarle, and asked Ms. Doerr to confirm whether or not the structures with tower elements as in the pictures distributed by Mr. DeCarle could or could not be built under current regulations. Ms. Doerr replied that they could not now, due to the wall plate height limit. However, Ms. Doerr noted that a variance is still an option for anyone interested in having such an element. Mr. Lambertson explained that he had disagreed with the consultant from the beginning, feeling that what was being presented to the City was merely a boilerplate. Further, he did not feel that the consultant truly understood local issues. And, in the end, the people of Atlantic Beach ended up drastically changing the recommendations. Mr. Lambertson also said that he thought Mr. DeCarle had made a good point regarding the past and present market situation. Page 5 of 9 Minutes of the February 19, 2008 regular meeting of the Community Development Board Mr. Lambertson said that he initially had concern over the status of duplexes, and the ability to rebuild. Ms. Doerr replied that there is a vesting provision that addresses destruction by any means not resulting from the action of the owner. The use as atwo-family residence is vested and the footprint is vested, but the rest of the new regulations would apply to new duplexes. Ms. Glasser said that she felt that there had been several flaws and basic issues of fairness in the original process. Why had the concentration been only on Old Atlantic Beach? Ms. Doerr replied that it originated out of Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan that specifically address the preservation of the character of Old Atlantic Beach, but that the City Commission later made a decision just to address Old Atlantic Beach at that time. Ms. Glasser expressed concern over removing FAR altogether, saying this had been presented as a package deal. This has started with discussion of FAR, but further fiddling could start unraveling the whole ordinance. She said that the bottom line is that we want to be fair, but there is disagreement as to what is fair. Mr. Lambertson agreed that he felt that neither the FAR provision, nor the other Residential Development Standards have truly been tested. Ms. Doerr interjected that she did not see limiting or removing the FAR as having a dramatic impact, but again stated that it is important to retain the other provisions of the Residential Development Standards. Again, she reminded the Board that if any particular regulation was a problem to an individual, then it could be handled through the variance process. Mr. Lambertson asked several questions regarding duplexes, and then commented that now felt more comfortable that the other existing regulations would address these. MOTION: Kirk Hansen made a motion to recommend to the City Commission the elimination of the FAR provisions from the Residential Development Standards, Section 24- 172(c), of the Land Development Regulations, finding that such removal is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and also that such removal will not render the remaining provisions of the Residential Development Standards inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Blaine Adams seconded the motion. Further discussion ensued, with Ms. Drysdale saying that so much had gone into the process that she felt that elimination of this provision was not advisable at this time, and because the standards were being looked at in a piecemeal fashion. Mr. Boyer added that tailoring an ordinance to current market conditions is disastrous. This Board and the City need to be proactive. The motion carried 4-2, with Mr. Boyer and Ms. Drysdale dissenting. Further discussion focused on the ability to incorporate architectural elements such as towers, as previously mentioned by Mr. DeCarle. Otherwise, people will design around the regulations and the result will be a lack of creativity, as noted by Mr. Boyer. Mr. Lambertson also agreed with Ms. Drysdale's earlier suggestion that an annual review of the standards needs to be implemented. MOTION: David Boyer made an additional motion to add that the Board recommend to the City Commission the incorporation of an annual review of the Residential Development Standards. Lynn Drysdale seconded the motion. There was no further discussion and the vote was unanimous. Page 6 of 9 Minutes of the February 19, 2008 regular meeting of the Community Development Board ITEM S.d. Recommendation to the City Commission related to proposed revisions to Section 24-154 of the Land Development Regulations, Display and Sale of Merchandise Outside of an enclosed Building to allow such outside displays of retail Eoods within the Commercial General Zomn~ District subiect to certain conditions Ms. Doerr introduced the item, explaining that several local merchants appeared before the City Commission last spring, requesting that they be allowed to display merchandise outside their places of business. Visits by the Code Enforcement Officer prompted this request. She noted that Section 24-154 was revised for clarification when some issues arose five or six years ago. Since then, outdoor display of certain items such as gardening supplies and equipment has been permitted. However, clothing and general merchandise are not allowed. This being a beach community, the ordinance was purposefully restrictive to prevent the display of "beach stuff'. Ms. Doerr reported that the same shop owners appeared again late last year and while the Commissioners were sympathetic to their situation, City Attorney Alan Jensen warned that the Commission could not be selective in granting such permission. So, the Commission directed staff to come up with revisions that would incorporate some flexibility. After speaking with representatives from nearby beach communities, Ms. Doerr drafted language specific to the Commercial General Zoning District as well as several other situations that had recently been discussed, such as seasonal outdoor sales (Christmas Trees, farmer's markets) and outdoor restaurant seating, especially that involving the sale & serving of alcohol. According to the proposed language, outdoor merchandise display or business activities could only be located on private property, and not on public sidewalks. Ms. Doerr noted that Town Center would be an example the sidewalks being public, whereas the sidewalks at the Publix shopping center are considered private. Other conditions would require that there be a limit as to the number and size of racks put out, that all merchandise be taken in at the close of business, and that the merchant could not sell something outside that was not also sold inside. Additionally, merchants would have to comply with all other regulations, such as signage. Ms. Drysdale inquired as to proposed item 24-154(a)(4)i., which states that display areas "shall not in any manner interfere with use of a sidewalk, walkway or entrance to a business". Mr. Adams stated that he would prefer to see a specific dimension, such as a 3-foot unobstructed area, to aid the Code Enforcement Officer. Ms. Glasser noted that the merchants are already displaying their wares outside, and she realizes that the Mayor and Commissioners want to assist local businesses, but she sees this as rewarding bad behavior. She asked if any of the shop owners requesting the change have ever been before the Code Enforcement Board (CEB) or paid fines for such violations, or if any of them are repeat offenders. Ms. Hall replied that Code Enforcement Officer Alex Sherrer visits merchants whenever he gets a complaint or observes outdoor displays, and typically the merchants comply immediately. However, they might turn around and do the same thing the next day or next week. She said she was unaware if anyone had actually been before the CEB or paid fines for outdoor displays, but she confirmed that Mr. Sherrer does keep a log of all cases. Page 7 of 9 Minutes of the February 19, 2008 regular meeting of the Community Development Board R.D. DeCarle, 51 Beach Avenue, spoke in favor of the outdoor displays so long as they were not on City sidewalks, explaining that sometimes vendors need to put things out to entice folks in. Mr. Boyer said that he was comfortable with the language that Ms. Doerr had put together. MOTION: Finding that the language of the proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, specifically the Future Land Use Element, and the City's desire to encourage retail and neighborhood-serving business activities, and finding also that it is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of Section 24-154 of the Land Development Regulations, and that it has been fully considered after a public hearing with legal notice duly published as required by law, David Boyer made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed amendment, with the addition of a clearly defined (3-foot) dimension to Section 24-154(a)(4)I, to assist in the enforcement, to the City Commission. Ellen Glasser seconded the motion. There was no further discussion and the motion passed unanimously. ITEM 5.e. Discussion re~ardin~ the need to clarify certain aermitted uses with commercial zomn~ districts. Ms. Doerr introduced the item, explaining that there had recently been a business application for and activity at 1487 Mayport Road in the Commercial Limited (CL) Zoning District that staff had concerns as to whether the use was permitted in the CL district. The applicant, representing a veteran's organization, wished to lease the property for the operation of a veteran's post, with the intention of holding bingo two days of the week. Bingo is expressly prohibited in the Commercial General (CG) Zoning District. CL is a less intensive zone, intended primarily for neighborhood services; therefore, logic should follow that a more intensive activity would not be permitted in a more restrictive zoning district. However, the applicant disagreed because the activity was not expressly prohibited in CL, and felt it should therefore be allowed. Mr. Hansen noted that the applicant had gone directly to the City Commission with this request, and they in turn, referred it to the CD Board. The general consensus of the CD Board was that without specific guidance in the code, this was more an issue of policy, and they were unclear with what the standard of consideration should be. Ms. Doerr explained to the Board that they were not required to address the specifics of this particular application, but to review the intent of the CL regulations and determine whether the zoning regulations needed to be amended to expressly address bingo as a permitted activity in the commercial districts or residential districts where bingo might be played at a church or private club. Currently there are no provisions that regulate bingo as an accessory use or activity other than as prohibited in the CG district. Ms. Glasser asked about churches that play bingo. Ms. Doerr stated that the City did not regulate such activities in churches or private clubs where this was clearly a minor and ancillary activity to the main use, and that there had been no suggestion that these activities should be regulated. Ms. Doerr explained that the intent of the Commercial Limited district and questioned how this use would fit into that intent. Mr. Boyer clarified that the application was for a business license to operate a veteran's post, and incidentally offer bingo twice a week. The applicant was not seeking aUse-by-Exception. Page 8 of 9 Minutes of the February 19, 2008 regular meeting of the Community Development Board Mr. Lambertson reiterated that bingo is prohibited in CG and that there should be some option to consider it, at least in that district. He recommended looking at the most intense zoning district (CG) and possibly listing it as a permitted accessory use in conjunction with a principal use or activity, or tying it to the Use-by-Exception process, so that each case could be thoroughly reviewed by the Board. He asked Ms. Doerr if she could draft language to that effect. Mr. Hansen said he sensed that the Commission wanted a resolution to the issue of process. Ms. Glasser agreed with Mr. Lambertson's suggestion that bingo should be addressed by means of a Use-by-Exception, as a secondary or ancillary use. She questioned how churches would be affected. Mr. Boyer said that the City is obligated to provide a zoning district in which churches and businesses may locate, but the City is not obligated to address or identify every possible use. Discussion continued related to how this specific request might be addressed. MOTION: David Boyer made a motion that the Board recommend to the City Commission bingo be permitted as aUse-by-Exception, as a secondary, accessory or ancillary use in the Commercial General Zoning District. Lynn Drysdale seconded the motion. Ms. Glasser again expressed concern over how this would affect churches. Ms. Doerr replied that the revisions could be made to the definitions for churches and community centers to address bingo as a fundraising activity. Mr. Boyer warned that care must be taken in defining what a church is and can do. Mr. Lambertson asked Ms. Doerr to do some additional research, formulate some options and bring them back to the Board at the next meeting. Mr. Drysdale withdrew her second and Mr. Boyer withdrew his motion, for further consideration of options. It was agreed that staff would prepare some provisions for the CD Board to consider, and bring those back at a future meeting. 6. ANNOUNCEMENTS OR OTHER BUSINESS NOT REQUIRING ACTION. There were no announcements or discussion of other business. 7. ADJOURNMENT. Chairman Lambertson adjourned the meeting at 9:35pm. Signed: is Lambertson, Chairman G3~~~~- Attest Page 9 of 9