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