2009-05-19_CDBminutes vMinutes of the May 19, 2009 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
3 ~yi.%1+y j~~~
J A
_~~
.~.. J
T)
J ="
'~~Uf3 ~a
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
A regular meeting of the Community Development Board was convened at 6:00 pm on Tuesday,
May 19, 2009 in the City Hall Commission Chambers, located at 800 Seminole Road in Atlantic
Beach. In attendance were Community Development Director Sonya Doerr, Principal Planner
Erika Hall and Community Development Board members Blaine Adams, Lynn Drysdale, Ellen
Glasser, Kirk Hansen, Joshua Putterman, and Chairman Chris Lambertson. Board member
David Boyer was absent.
1. CALL TO ORDER. Chair Chris Lambertson called the meeting to order at 6:03 pm.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Mr. Lambertson called for a motion to approve the minutes of
the Apri121, 2009 regular meeting. Ellen Glasser moved that the Board approve the minutes
of the Apri121, 2009 meeting, as written. Kirk Hansen seconded the motion and it carried
unanimously, 6-0.
3. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS. There were no visitors present at the meeting.
4. OLD BUSINESS. There was no old business for consideration.
5. NEW BUSINESS.
a. ZVAR-2009-03 (Yarbrough). Request for a Variance from Section 24-157 to allow
placement of a six-foot high fence on the property line along the street side of a
corner lot located at 403 Mako Drive within the RS-1 Zoning District.
Mr. Lambertson asked Ms. Doerr to provide a summary of the request. Ms. Doerr
reminded the Board that, per current regulations, afour-foot (4') fence may be placed
directly on the property line along the street side of a corner lot. However, anything
higher than four (4) feet must be set back ten (10) feet from the property line. She
explained that the Yarbrough lot is typical by Royal Palms Subdivision standards. It is
roughly 75' wide by 100' deep. Royal Palms Drive is a 60' right-of--way, with 20-25' of
pavement.
Ellen Glasser noted the applicant's purpose - to enclose the side yard that is the location
of a swale for safety purposes -and that the request had been reviewed by Public Safety.
She then referred to a drawing for the placement of the six (6) foot high fence contained
in the application, and asked where the property line was located in relationship to the
fence in that diagram. Ms. Doerr noted that diagram had the fence located directly on the
Page 1 of 6
Minutes of the May 19, 2009 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
property line. Ms. Glasser then confirmed that, for compliance with existing regulations,
the six (6) foot high fence would have to be moved in ten (10) feet. Ms. Doerr said that
was correct, and added that the property line is located approximately 17.5' from the edge
of pavement.
Mr. Lambertson opened the floor to property owner and applicant Chad Yarbrough, 403
Mako Drive. Mr. Yarbrough stated that he and his wife purchased and moved into the
house nearly a year and a half ago, and that their desire to enclose the yard with a six (6)
foot fence is primarily for security and privacy. He explained that on several occasions
vagrants have come into the backyard and asked his family and guests for money. He
said that he has been attending the Royal Palms community meetings, and found out the
previous week that there are drug dealers that have been in the area and known to the
local police force for over ten years. This, along with the rash of disappearances of
young children -especially little girls -over the last couple of years, has made him very
concerned for his family's safety. Mr. Yarbrough said that he believes a four (4) foot
fence was not sufficient for safety purposes, and he believes that someone could easily
pick up a small child over such a fence.
Additionally, Mr. Yarbrough explained that a four (4) foot fence afforded no privacy,
allowing one to see all of the rear bedroom windows which face Triton Road, which he
noted is used as acut-through by many people and has a high volume of traffic. He also
noted that a number of large dogs run freely through the neighborhood, and he believes
that some of them could easily jump a four (4) foot fence and harm his family.
Mr. Yarbrough explained that there previously was a pool located in the side yard, and
there had been a fence in the proposed location. He referred the Board to a copy of the
old survey showing the location of the fence on the property line, as well as photos of the
Swale submitted with the variance application. He noted that the depth of the swale
varies from 10"-12" in one area to over 1' in depth in another.
Mr. Yarbrough referred to similar variance applications that had come before the Board in
recent months and years, and noted that, unlike these other requests, his request for
variance to the fence regulation did not raise a sight triangle issue nor would it create a
"compound" effect, due to the wide right-of--way, a large portion of which remains
unpaved. Referring again to the photos, he explained that he had used Photoshop to show
the effect of both a four (4) foot and a six (6) foot fence. Additionally, he showed the
effect of having the fence located ten (10) feet in from the property line. In such a case,
the fence would either have a dip where it crossed the Swale (thus decreasing the net
height of the fence and the privacy effect) or it would have a large gap underneath it (thus
decreasing the security effect). Mr. Yarbrough said that he had spoken with Public Works
Director Rick Carper who confirmed that he could not fill in the Swale.
Ms. Glasser commended Mr. Yarbrough on his thorough application and asked what type
of fencing he planned to use, to which he answered board-on-board, with no gaps. Blaine
Adams said that he empathized with the Yarbrough's' hardships, but explained that Board
members are not legislators. Instead, it is their job to uphold the existing regulations.
Still, while a number of previous applications clearly did not qualify for a variance for
various reasons, in this instance, the 17.5' of right-of--way between the pavement and the
property line sufficiently meets the intent of the ten (10) foot setback, in that it does
Page 2 of 6
Minutes of the May 19, 2009 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
prevent sight-triangle issues. Mr. Adams suggested that this is an issue that the Board
needs to thoroughly examine so as to determine if there are certain conditions which, if
present, would allow placement of a six (6) foot high fence on or closer to the property
line.
Mr. Lambertson asked if there was anyone else in the audience that wished to speak for
or against this application. Carol Yarbrough, 2912 Antigua Drive, said that she was the
applicant's mother and that she was present the night that the ragged, unkempt man came
to the door twice asking for a handout. She said that she is extremely concerned for her
granddaughter who is just beginning to walk. She explained that the placement of the
four (4) foot fence along the swale would result in essentially a three (3) foot fence,
which an adult could easily reach over and pick up a small child.
Kirk Hansen noted this was the third fence request in recent months.
Ms. Doerr pointed out that two approved variances cited by Mr. Yarbrough in his
narrative were rare in that each of those lots had streets on three sides. She further noted
that typical rectangular corner lots with streets on only two sides have not been approved,
and reminded the Board that they must find extenuating circumstances to grant the
variance.
Josh Putterman asked if three (3) street sides constituted sufficient reason to grant a
variance, would not excessive unpaved right-of--way also suffice? He then asked what it
took to change the regulations. Mr. Lambertson asked if Mr. Putterman was making a
finding that the abnormally large right-of--way was sufficient. Mr. Adams said that he
found it to be sufficient, and he asked that if the Board approved this variance that they
also quickly move forward with the revision to the regulations. Ms. Doerr explained that
the Board had the ability to review existing regulations and make recommendations for
changes to the City Commission.
Ms. Glasser asked which under which exception this finding would qualify, to which Mr.
Hansen replied number three (3), because of the right-of--way. Lynn Drysdale asked that
it also be added that the fence will be located such that there would be no impact to line
of sight. Ms. Glasser asked if the additional language was necessary, and Ms. Doerr
explained that the issue of line of sight would be addressed as part of the building permit
application, but that it is best to include any and all conditions of approval in the findings.
MOTION: Ellen Glasser moved that the Community Development Board, finding
that there is an excessive width of unpaved right-of--way adjacent to the subject
property that constitutes an extenuating circumstance preventing reasonable use of
the property, approve ZVAR-2009-03, a request for a Variance from Section 24-157
to allow placement of a six-foot high fence on the property line along the street side
of a corner lot located at 403 Mako Drive within the RS-1 Zoning District, as shown
on the submitted diagram, and also finding that such placement meets the intent of
the fence regulations and requiring that the request be reviewed and approved by
the Public Safety Department for clear line of sight and applicable sight distance
triangle standards. Josh Putterman seconded the motion and it carried
unanimously, 6-0.
Page 3 of 6
Minutes of the May 19, 2009 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
b. Public Hearing to consider proposed Evaluation and Appraisal Report based
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Doerr reminded Board members that last summer they had participated in the review
of the existing Comprehensive Plan. Input from this Board, the City Commission, staff
and residents, along with numerous outside agencies resulted in the identification of five
key issues for Atlantic Beach. Discussion of those issues and plans to address them were
the subject of the resultant Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR), which was reviewed
and accepted by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) as the basis for
amendments to the Comp Plan. Thus, the next step is to amend the Comp Plan with new
or revised policies which successfully address those issues raised in the EAR. Ms. Doerr
explained that staff has been working diligently on those amendments, and over the next
few meetings, the proposed updates will be brought to the Board for review and public
comment. The amount of time it takes to work through them will be dependent upon the
amount of public participation as well as the amount of CD Board and City Commission
discussion. At the appropriate time, the CD Board, in its role as the Local Planning
Agency, will make a recommendation to the City Commission to transmit the proposed
amendments to the DCA for review.
Ms. Doerr explained that tonight's presentation would be of the Future Land Use
Element, the Coastal/Conservation Element and the Recreation and open space Element.
She began by clarifying a statement made at the May meeting regarding current
regulations and stormwater facilities. All new development must comply with the Land
Development Regulations regarding stormwater discharge. There must be no change in
impact from pre- to post-development. This means that if a property is redeveloped, it
can continue to discharge the same amount it previously discharged, but no more than
that. Any increase in stormwater discharge must be accommodated per the regulations.
Ms. Glasser said she was curious about A.1.3.4 (page A.7), and asked, with the
acquisition of the Buckman property, if the intent was to restrict private vendors from
providing kayak and canoe rentals, ad similar services. Ms. Doerr replied that was not the
intent, and added that, as the City develops a Master Plan for the preserve, it is
contemplating involvement of such vendors.
Ms. Doerr noted that there are a lot of references to energy efficiency throughout all the
elements, and explained that this arises out of last year's House Bill 697, which requires
the development of energy efficient land use development patterns. Much of this is not
relevant since Atlantic Beach is such a small town and is effectively built out, but the
language is still included at the recommendation of DCA. She also noted that a number
oftime-specific policies are struck-through and are being deleted because they have been
accomplished.
The Board worked through the Future Land Use Element, noting and discussing the
following changes.
The new language in policy A.1.7.2 (page A-11) is merely for clarification purposes, and
does not create additional requirements. Policy A.1.8.3 (page A-12) is the new definition
for Coastal High Hazard Areas. While we have the definition of what it is, we are still
Page 4 of 6
Minutes of the May 19, 2009 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
waiting for the actual boundaries to be generated so that we can depict them on a map. In
Policy A.1.10.2 (page A-13, in relation to environmentally sensitive areas, the term
"disturb" has been removed because of the vagueness of it. Instead, it is being
established that the quantity of wetlands cannot be diminished.
Policy A.1.10.5 (page A-13) further defines the project area and purpose the Mayport
Corridor. Language contained in policies A. l . l l . l (h) Electric Distribution Stations & (i)
Public Schools (page a-17) is state-mandated, as is the language contained in objective
A.1.14 (page A-19), regarding energy efficiency and energy conservation. Ms. Doerr
noted that the Florida Building Code is evolving to include more "green standards" and
those would play a large part in implementing these policies.
Ms. Glasser asked about the verbiage of some of the issues and inquired if Atlantic Beach
was sharing responsibility with the City of Jacksonville (COJ), such as in the Mayport
Corridor effort. Ms. Doerr said that many of the initiatives that have arisen out of the
Mayport Corridor project have been cross jurisdictional, and that Jacksonville has
adopted a parallel ordinance for the commercial portion of Mayport Road that is within
COJ's jurisdiction.
The Board next reviewed the Conservation and Coastal Management Element. Ms.
Doerr noted that the language of policies D.1.4.4 and D.1.4.5 (page D-4) is statutorily
required even though the City does not anticipate the development of marinas within its
jurisdiction. Policy D.2.1.2 (page D-5) adopts a standard 12-hour hurricane evacuation
time in the event of a category 5 storm. Otherwise, the City would have to conduct
extensive studies and develop an explicit disaster management plan.
Objective D.2.2 (pages D-6,7) has been revised with the completion and deletion of
several policies as well as clarification of language regarding reconstruction and
compliance with applicable Land Development Regulations, Florida Building Codes and
Coastal Construction Codes in policy D.2.24 and inclusion of the new definition of
Coastal High Hazard in D.2.2.5. Objective D.3.5 (pages D-11,12) has been enhanced
with language specific to the acquisition and intended use of the Buckman tract, now
official named the "River Branch Preserve".
The Board next reviewed the Recreation and Open Space Element. Ms. Doerr noted that
the major changes to this element include an updated inventory of recreation/open spaces
and facilities & amenities available for public use. She directed the Board to proposed
policy E.1.2.9 (page E-6) and noted that while this has been a recurring discussion, it has
met with opposition over the years. However, Hanna Park is an extremely underutilized
facility, the benefits of which could be greatly realized by Atlantic Beach residents if only
they had convenient access.
Additionally, policies E.1.2.3 (page E-6) and E.1.3.2 (page E-7) set the proposed
minimum standard width for sidewalks and pathways at eight (8) feet, so as to encourage
connectivity, recreational activities, and alternative modes of transportation.
MOTION: Blaine Adams moved that the Board recommend transmittal of
proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element, the Recreation and Open
Space Element and the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the 2015
Page 5 of 6
Minutes of the May 19, 2009 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Comprehensive Plan as presented, to the City Commission, finding that these
amendments are consistent with and address the key issues identified as part of the
Evaluation and Appraisal Report process and/or they are required by State Growth
Management law. Lynn Drysdale seconded the motion and it carried unanimously,
6-0.
6. OTHER BUSINESS NOT REQUIRING ACTION. None.
7. ADJOURNMENT. Chairman Lambertson adjourned the meeting at 7:36 pm.
~~~ ~~~~
Signed: C , C airman c ~~~ ~~o~-~~~
~~
ttest
Page 6 of 6