2009-06-16_CDBminutes vMinutes of the June 16, 2009 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
s
J
%', \~
~Jff ~~ /
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
A regular meeting of the Community Development Board was convened at 6:01 pm on Tuesday,
June 16, 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, David Boyer, Lynn
Drysdale, Ellen Glasser, and Kirk Hansen. Board member Joshua Putterman and Chairman
Chris Lambertson were absent.
1. CALL TO ORDER. Vice-Chair Lynn Drysdale presided over the meeting in the absence of
Chair Chris Lambertson and called the meeting to order at 6:01 pm.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Ms. Drysdale called for a motion to approve the minutes of
the May 19, 2009 regular meeting. Ellen Glasser moved that the Board approve the
minutes of the May 19, 2009 meeting, as written. Blaine Adams seconded the motion
and it carried unanimously, 5-0.
3. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS. Ms. Doerr introduced Public Utilities Director Donna
Kaluzniak and Public Works Director Rick Carper, and said that they were in attendance for
the Public Hearing of the proposed Evaluation and Appraisal Report-based amendments to
Transportation and Infrastructure Elements of the Comprehensive Plan.
4. OLD BUSINESS. There was no old business for consideration.
5. NEW BUSINESS.
a. Public Hearing to consider proposed Evaluation and Appraisal Report based
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Doerr reminded the Board and audience that this is the second of several meetings to
review proposed updates to the Comprehensive Plan. At the appropriate time, the
Community Development Board, acting in its capacity as the Local Planning Agency,
will make a recommendation to the City Commission to transmit the proposed
amendments to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for review, after which
DCA will issue an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) report to the
City.
Ms. Doerr also reported that Senate Bi11360, which had broad and sweeping implications
for Growth Management in Florida, had been signed into law last week. One area of
significance for Atlantic Beach is transportation concurrency. For the most part, the
Page 1 of 7
Minutes of the June 16, 2009 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
existing concurrency system does not work for communities such as Atlantic Beach that
are high density and built-out with no space for transportation improvements. As a result,
staff had looked into pursuing designation of the City as a Transportation Concurrency
Exception Area. However, the criteria and application process was complex, and word
came that the legislature was looking to bestow automatic designation on communities
found to be "dense urban land azeas", defined as those having more than 1,000 residents
per square mile. With slightly more than 13,000 residents and only about 4 square miles,
the passage of SB 360 guazantees that Atlantic Beach will now be designated as a TCEA.
Still, DCA is in the process of working out the details, and in the mean time, has directed
those affected communities in the midst of EAR-based amendments to continue without
consideration of the TCEA status, and they will be advised as to appropriate measures
and actions in the future.
Thus, Ms. Doerr continued, the Transportation Element before the Boazd tonight merely
consists of minor revisions, including version dates of this document and reference
manuals, name changes of organizations and/or agencies, updated traffic counts and
projection models, and inclusion of newly mandated language for "energy efficient"
growth. With no comments or questions, Ms. Doerr moved on to the Infrastructure
Element.
Ellen Glasser, referring to Policy C.2.1.2, noted that there had been discussion amongst
Boazd members during recent meetings regazding this provision. She asked if this was a
change to existing policy, to which Ms. Doerr replied no, that it was just a clarification of
the existing policy. Ms. Doerr then turned the floor over to Mr. Carper who gave a brief
history of the stormwater facility provision, explaining that it had been codified in 2002,
upon recommendation of the engineers for the Core City project, and that it had been
enforced since his tenure as City Engineer began in 2004. He said that he realized that
there aze added development costs, and it is often seen as onerous, especially by those
building on previously vacant lots. However, Mr. Carper went on to explain that the
onsite retention required for any net increase in stormwater runoff is calculated to
accommodate up to a 25-year storm, which would be the equivalent to 9.3" in a 24 hour
period. He noted that last year's Tropical Storm Faye dumped 8.5" of rain on Atlantic
Beach within a 24 hour period, and thus could be classified somewhere between a 15-
and 25-yeaz storm, and because of the Core City improvements and the subsequent
implementation of the net-increase retention requirements, the system as a whole had
operated just as it was designed.
Ms. Glasser thanked Mr. Carper for the background information, and with no additional
questions or comments, Ms. Doerr asked Ms. Kaluzniak to give a brief overview of
impending changes to the water/wastewater system due to state mandates. Ms. Kaluzniak
explained that the biggest driver of infrastructural changes for her department is the
implementation of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), which limits the amount of
nitrogen that wastewater plants can dischazge. Subsequently, the City is embarking on a
neazly ten million dollar upgrade to the municipal wastewater system. Ms. Kaluzniak
said that extensive studies had preceded this decision, and that upgrade of the Sandpiper
plant, and eventual decommission of the Wonderwood plant turned out to be the most
cost effective solution. Ms. Glasser asked what would happen to the Wonderwood site,
and Ms. Kaluzniak said that eventually, the plant, with exception to the pumping station,
would be demolished and the property would be sold.
Page 2 of 7
Minutes of the June 16, 2009 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
With no other questions or comments on transportation or infrastructure, Ms. Kaluzniak
and Mr. Carper excused themselves from the remainder of the meeting. Ms. Drysdale
moved on to the Housing Element. Ms. Doerr explained there were only a few minor
changes, adding references to the International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) and
the recent redevelopment initiatives in the Royal Palms and SeaSpray subdivisions, as
well inclusion of the mandated "energy efficient" growth language noted during the
eazlier discussion of the Transportation Element. Mr. Adams asked what is the
International Property Maintenance Code and Ms. Doerr explained it is another tool for
ensuring that properties, especially structures, aze maintained clean and safe and
habitable. She said that it used primarily by the Building Department and Code
Enforcement.
The Board next moved to the Intergovernmental Coordination Element. Ms. Glasser
questioned the meaning of "annexation" within the context of Policy G 1.1.3, asking if
this was boilerplate language, or if the City intended to annex something. Ms. Doerr
replied that there is a large and extensive Inter Local Agreement (ILA) between the City
of Jacksonville and the Beach Cities & Baldwin, due to the consolidated government, and
that ILA has very specific language requirements, as does the statutes that govern the
ILA, as well as new provisions of SB 360. However, Ms. Doerr noted that there has been
an ongoing interest by the Mayor and City Manager to annex the Selva Marina Country
Club golf course property, though there was nothing in the works. Ms. Glasser asked did
the City not already take credit for the golf course in meeting our recreational
requirements. Ms. Doerr explained that credit can be taken for what aze designated as
regional facilities. With no further questions or comments, Ms. Drysdale called for a
motion.
MOTION: Ellen Glasser moved that the Board recommend transmittal of proposed
amendments to the Transportation Element, the Infrastructure Element, the
Housing Element, and the Intergovernmental Coordination Element 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. Blaine Adams
seconded the motion and it carried unanimously, 5-0.
Page 3 of 7
Minutes of the June 16, 2009 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
b. Public Hearing to consider and make a recommendation to the City Commission
related to proposed revisions of the Zoning, Subdivision, and Land Development
Regulations, including a revision to the fence regulations, accessory structure
regulations, and creating a new section, Section 24-173, to be entitled Neighborhood
Preservation, Residential Property Maintenance and Upkeep Standards.
Exhibit A: Section 24-ISl. Accessory Uses and Structures. Ms. Doerr explained that
currently accessory structures such as storage or tool sheds and detached garages greater
than 80 square feet in area are required to be ten (10) feet from the rear lot line, whereas
those structures less than 80 square feet in area are permitted to be only five (5) feet from
the rear lot line. At the May 26th Workshop, Commissioner Carolyn Woods suggested
that the setback be changed to five (5) feet and made consistent for all storage structures,
no matter their size. Additionally, Ms. Doerr recommended to strike the ten (10) foot
separation from principal structure requirement completely, and maintain the permitted
roof height of storage and tool sheds at twelve (12) feet, no matter the type of roof used.
David Boyer disagreed, stating that decreasing the setback from ten (10) feet to five (5)
was worse in that it created a dead space that was both unusable and unmanageable. He
stated no [zero (0) feet] setback was better, but Ms. Doerr said that this could become a
fire safety issue, and adjoining neighbors might find this objectionable.
MOTION: David Boyer moved that the Board recommend approval of the revisions to
Section 24-151, as presented in Exhibit A, with the following change: strike the rear
setback requirement making it possible to place an accessory structure directly on the rear
property line. Ms. Glasser seconded the motion for the purpose of opening discussion.
Mr. Adams and Mr. Hansen agreed that allowing zero setback structures would
undoubtedly result in less well-maintained structures and angry neighbors, and Ms. Doerr
added that staff already receives a high number of complaints about fences that are
directly on the property line, and that requiring not setback would likely be problematic.
Ms. Drysdale called for a vote and the motion failed, 1-4, with Mr. Boyer as the only
member in favor of the motion.
Mr. Boyer, referring to 24-151(b)(1)xiv, asked if the City needed to regulate the size of
dog houses. Mr. Adams agreed that he thought this provision was excessive.
MOTION: Blaine Adams moved that the Board recommend approval of revisions
to Section 24-151, Accessory Uses and Structures, as presented in Exhibit A, with the
removal of item 24-151(b)(1)ziv, which limits the area and height permitted for dog
houses. Kirk Hansen seconded the motion and with no further discussion, the
motion passed unanimously.
Exhibit B: Section 24-ISM Fences and Walls and Similar Structures. Ms. Doerr
explained fence permit applications are reviewed by Planning & Zoning for compliance
with setback and height regulations; Public Utilities and Public Works for clearance from
utility and infrastructure easements; public safety for clearance of traffic line of sight, and
Building for compliance with any engineering or coastal zone construction regulations.
Additionally, fences are often the subject of variance applications and code enforcement
calls.
Recent requests for fence variances compelled this Board last month to recommend
revisions to Section 24-157 such that certain common circumstances would be addressed
Page 4 of 7
Minutes of the June 16, 2009 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
by regulations rather than requiring the property owner to apply for a variance and
demonstrate a hardship. Ms. Doerr added that Commission-directed initiatives along the
Mayport Corridor, Section H and Royal Palms subdivisions, were also impetus to update
this section, as were recent questions about non-fence structures such as arbors and
trellises.
Moving on to Section 24-157(b), Ms. Doerr explained that Code Enforcement Officer
Alex Sherrer had received a number of calls regarding the height of certain ornamental
fences. In his research, Mr. Sherrer found that the standard industry height of many
aluminum, iron and vinyl fences is five (5) feet. Ms. Doerr noted that many people use
these fences around swimming pools and that the required latch on pool fences must be at
least 54" above grade. Additionally, these fences are typically very attractive and low
maintenance, and the City would like to encourage their use, especially in front yards.
The proposed revision would allow such fences be constructed to a maximum height of
five (5) feet within required front yards, so long as the vertical rail spacing is at least four
(4) inches apart. Mr. Boyer asked why the vertical spacing was specified, and Ms. Doerr
explained that vertical rails spaced any closer would begin to appear opaque and thus
give the impression of a solid wall, and possibly interfere with traffic line of sight. Mr.
Adams added that he believed 4-inch rail spacing was an industry standard as well.
Ms. Glasser inquired as to the status of chain link fences. Ms. Doerr reported that the
City Commission had decided not to prohibit chain link fences. They had decided
instead to address the condition of fences regardless of what they were made of. Ms.
Glasser expressed that said that if any type of fence was to be excluded, now is the time
to do so.
MOTION: Ellen Glasser moved that the Board recommend revision to Item 24-
157(f) in the proposed Section 24-157, Fences and Walls and Similar Structures, of
the Zoning, Subdivision and Land Development Regulations, as presented in Ezhibit
B, such that it prohibits the use of chain link fencing materials within required front
yards. Blaine Adams seconded the motion to open it for further discussion. He then
stated that he thought chain link fences could be dealt with from a maintenance
standpoint. Kirk Hansen added that dictating fencing materials was getting into
personal preferences. Ms. Doerr noted that this could be self-correcting, in that
there had been very few requests to put up chain link fences in front yards in recent
years. Ms. Drysdale called for a vote and the motion failed, 0-5.
Ms. Drysdale asked if there were comments or questions on subsection 24-157(c)
regarding fences on corner lots, and hearing none, she asked if there were questions or
comments on subsection 24-157(d) regarding structures similar to fences. Mr. Boyer
asked why limitations were being placed on such non-fence structures. Ms. Doerr
explained that there have been several recent examples, especially along the oceanfront,
where trellises have been employed to create a privacy screen. While these particular
trellises were done extremely well, questions have arisen as to definitions of and
limitations to such non-fence structures.
Moving on to subsection 24-157(e), Mr. Boyer inquired as to the use of the term
"common observation" in reference to determination of fences "in a state of neglect,
damage or disrepair", and Ms. Doerr said that was typical language for City codes. Mr.
Hansen noted that specific examples of qualifying conditions were listed. Mr. Adams
Page 5 of 7
Minutes of the June 16, 2009 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
inquired about the applicability of "rusted" since some metals corrode rather than rust,
and Ms. Doerr said she could add the word "corroded" to Item 24-157(e)i.
Referring to Item 24-157(b)v, Mr. Boyer asked that the "minimum necessary rake of the
Fence" be defined or limited. Ms. Doerr replied that rake is defined within the provision
as "the ability for a Fence to adjust to a slope" and subsequently, the necessary rake of
any given fence will be driven by the slope specific to that location. Ms. Glasser then
asked if plans for any fence utilizing this provision would be reviewed to ensure that no
one was abusing the allowance just to get a higher fence. Ms. Doerr confirmed that all
fence permit applications are reviewed by Planning & Zoning, and the Building
Department at minimum.
Ms. Drysdale then asked if there were any other questions or comments regarding fences,
to which Mr. Boyer replied that he still had concerns about trellises, stating that if fences
are limited to six (6) feet in height, then landscape elements should be also.
MOTION: David Boyer moved that the Board recommend revision to Item 24-157(d) in
the proposed Section 24-157, Fences and Walls and Similar Structures, of the Zoning,
Subdivision and Land Development Regulations, as presented in Exhibit B, such that it
limits the height of trellises and other structures similar to fences, to a maximum height
of six (6) feet above grade, and such that applicants may not circumvent the intent of a
fence. There was no second and the motion failed. With no additional questions or
comments on fences, Ms. Drysdale moved to Exhibit C.
Exhibit C.• Section 24-173. Neighborhood Preservation, Residential Property
Maintenance and Upkeep Standards. Ms. Doerr explained that this is an entirely new
section, which has developed out of necessity in response to conditions in the Royal
Palms and Aquatic Gardens subdivisions. The Police Department has dedicated a couple
of officers to work exclusively in the neighborhood, and the Building Inspector has been
assisting the Code Enforcement Officer respond to calls. Additionally, there have been a
couple of clean up days, and already the neighborhood is showing a drastic improvement.
However, the intent of this section is to give the Code Enforcement Officer more clearly
defined tools to deal with such maintenance problems on a city-wide basis. Ms. Drysdale
asked if there was not already similar language in the Code Enforcement regulations.
Ms. Doerr replied that the existing language was not very explicit.
Ellen Glasser inquired about Item 24-173(c), which states "All areas of a lot visible from
a Street or a neighboring property shall be maintained in an acceptable manner", and
asked if this was not a slippery slope towards complete control of what a property owner
could or could not have on their property. She also asked if another word could be
substituted for "junk" in 24-173(c)i. Mr. Adams added that he thought the paragraph on
children's toys [24-173(c)v] was redundant of the 24-173(c)i, but Mr. Hansen said that he
same them as two separate issues. Ms. Doerr explained that the paragraph on children's
toys was separate because it developed from a very specific complaint, and she reiterated
that the purpose of this section was to provide Code Enforcement with tools to deal with
some very specific problems.
MOTION: Blaine Adams moved that the Board recommend the removal of Item 24-
173(c)v, which specifically limits children's toys to areas not visible from a street, from
Page 6 of 7
Minutes of the June 16, 2009 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
proposed Section 24-173, Neighborhood Preservation, Residential Property Maintenance
and Upkeep Standards, of the Zoning Subdivision and Land Development Regulations, as
presented in Exhibit C. Mr. Boyer seconded the motion, and Ms. Drysdale asked if there
would be additional discussion. Ms. Glasser asked if Mr. Adams had any alternative
language, perhaps incorporating the intent of (c)v into (c)i, noting that people will
probably argue that broken bicycle is not debris. Ms. Drysdale recommended the
revision of (c)i. as follows: "...construction materials, broken and/or abandoned items
that by reasonable observation do not belong on a residential lot."
MOTION: Mr. Adams asked to amend his previous motion, and moved that the
Board recommend the removal of Item 24-173(c)v, and revise Item 24-173(c)i of the
proposed Section 24-173, Neighborhood Preservation, Residential Property
Maintenance and Upkeep Standards, of the Zoning Subdivision and Land
Development Regulations, as presented in Exhibit C, to read `construction
materials, broken and/or abandoned items that by reasonable observation do not
belong on a residential lot." Mr. Hansen seconded the motion, and with no further
discussion, it passed unanimously, 5-0.
With all sections having been reviewed, Ms. Drysdale asked if the Board was ready to
make a recommendation to the City Commission.
MOTION: Kirk Hansen moved that the Board forward to the City Commission a
recommendation for approval of Ordinance 90-09-208, amending the Land
Development Regulations as presented within EXHIBITS A, B and C including the
revisions as moved. Mr. Adams seconded the motion. Mr. Boyer stated that he
would not support forwarding Ordinance 90-09-208 to the Commission until
trellises and similar and landscaping were limited in height to six (6) feet, and made
consistent with fences. There was no further discussion, and the motion carried 4-1,
with Mr. Boyer dissenting.
6. OTHER BUSINESS NOT REQUIRING ACTION. None.
7. ADJOURNMENT. Ms. Drysdale adjourned the meeting at 8:17 pm.
Chris ambertson, Chairman
r''
l ; ~ ~ Gt ~i~-G~h-
Attest
Page 7 of 7