Loading...
2009-11-04_CDBminutes vMinutes of the November 4, 2009 rescheduled meeting of the Community Development Board ?2~1~~Jr~r~ _.J ',`~~ .~ .a,~~r ""b`~ j MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Wednesday, November 4, 2009 (Rescheduled from October 20, 2009) The October 20~' regular meeting of the Community Development Board was cancelled on short notice due to lack of quorum. The rescheduled October meeting was convened at 6:07 pm on Wednesday, November 4, 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 David Boyer, Lynn Drysdale, Ellen Glasser, Kirk Hansen, Chris Lambertson (arrived at 6:35 pm) and Joshua Putterman. Board member Blaine Adams was absent. 1. CALL TO ORDER. In the absence of Chair Chris Lambertson, Vice-Chair Lynn Drysdale called the meeting to order at 6:07 pm. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Ms. Drysdale called for a motion to approve the minutes of the September 15, 2009 regular meeting. Ellen Glasser moved that the Board approve the minutes of the September 15, 2009 meeting, as written. Joshua Putterman seconded the motion and it carried unanimously, 5-0. 3. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS. It was noted that the City Engineer, Public Works Director Rick Carper, and City Building Official, Michael Griffin were in attendance to address any concerns regarding proposed changes to the land development regulations relevant to the authorities, duties and responsibilities of their respective departments. 4. OLD BUSINESS. There was no old business for consideration. 5. NEW BUSINESS. a. Public Hearing to continue review of a general update to Chapter 24, the Land Development Regulations. Ms. Drysdale suggested that Ms. Doerr refresh everyone's memories as to what had been reviewed and discussed at the previous (September) meeting. Ms. Doerr explained that the first thirty pages of the Board's current packet consisted of proposed updates to the LDRs, including revisions discussed and suggested by the Board at the previous meeting. Ms. Doerr reviewed those items, pointing out the how revisions had either been incorporated or were to be addressed by Mr. Carper or Mr. Griffin. However, Ms. Glasser noted that several questions had been posed by Mr. Lambertson, and she requested that the Board wait until his arrival to discuss them further. Page 1 of 4 Minutes of the November 4, 2009 rescheduled meeting of the Community Development Board Ms. Doerr moved along to discussion of proposed changes to the Zoning Districts, which she explained to be solely for "housekeeping" purposes that would simplify the classification system and eliminate a number of obsolete designations. She noted that the Catholic radio station, the cemetery and the Intracoastal preserves are now the only lands zoned as Conservation in the City, and further explained that the cemetery continues to be a permitted use and that the radio station is content to be a legal non-conforming use. Thus, the Use-by-Exception provisions were no longer relevant for the Conservation Zoning District, and removal of this portion of text was recommended. She then explained that the existing RG-1 and RG-lA districts, both of which are Residential General, Two-family that allow up to two dwelling units (duplexes and townhouses) so long as there is sufficient land to meet Future Land Use requirements, are proposed to be combined into a single Residential General, Two-Family Zoning District, enumerated as RG Likewise, the existing RG-2 and RG-3 districts are both Residential General, Multi-Family, and should be combined into a single Residential General, Multi- Family Zoning District, enumerated as RG-M. Ms. Doerr next recommended the removal of the Residential Mobile Home (RMH) Zoning District, noting that the only remaining mobile homes within the City were situated on the Singleton property, which has always been zoned as Commercial General. Thus, there is no need to maintain this district. Mr. Lambertson arrived at 6:35 pm, and Ms. Doerr asked that the Board return to the items that Mr. Carper and Mr. Grim were in attendance to address, so that they could be excused. Ms. Doerr noted that per the Board's discussion at the previous meeting of the proposed methodology for attaining `Calculated Average Grade' and its application to determination of overall building height, she had again revised the definition. For those properties lying outside of a flood zone, and with less than two feet of topographical variation, a simplified method could be employed to determine the existing grade; or alternatively the taking of points on a 10' x 10' grid superimposed over the buildable area of the lot could be used for those lots if the property owner preferred. However, any lot with more than two feet (2') of variation, and all ocean front lots would be required to use the latter Calculated Average Grade method, as well as submit certified copies of the survey and calculation worksheet demonstrating how the elevation was achieved. Mr. Griffin said that the building height would then be thirty-five feet (35') on top of the elevation as determined by calculated average grade plus any required `free board'. David Boyer asked that a definition for `Buildable Area' be added to Section 24-17. Ms. Doerr noted that this definition is already included. Discussion next returned to Section 24-66, Stormwater, Drainage, Storage and Treatment Requirements. In answering a question posed by the Board at the previous meeting, Mr. Carper said that Atlantic Beach is the only community in North Florida to have on-site retention requirements. He explained that in 2002, the city spent approximately $9 million to upgrade the stormwater system within the "core city". During the same time frame, the master stormwater plan was updated; the City was advised that if everyone were allowed to build to 50% impervious as allowed by Land Development Regulations (LDR), then the City would be back in the same predicament. Thus, it was recommended Page 2 of 4 Minutes of the November 4, 2009 rescheduled meeting of the Community Development Board to keep the maximum impervious surface area at 50% for residential lots, but to require any net increase over existing runoff be accommodated on-site. Board members expressed concern that individual property owners were burdened with the cost of on-site retention. However, Mr. Carper noted that should the City have to accommodate the increased runoff, the cost would be two -three times more than the cumulative cost to individuals, and the entire tax base would have to be increased. Ms. Doerr noted that any requests for minor deviations from this regulation would be passed on to Mr. Carper to evaluate, and as with administrative deviations that she processes, he would have the ability to permit a deviation of up to 5% of the requirement. Mr. Lambertson asked if the unfilled portions of a swimming pool could be considered as retention, noting that for example, the typical pool is filled to six inches below the top. Mr. Carper said that this had been discussed in the past but was not a consideration at this time. Instead, he noted that most property owners that were approaching their limits were instead doing things such as ripping out impervious surfaces such as driveways and walkways and reinstalling pervious materials. Mr. Lambertson then asked Mr. Carper to explain the 400 square foot allowance given in Section 24-66, questioning if the number was arbitrary. Mr. Carper explained coverage of a 400-square foot area with impervious material would require an approximately 200 cubic foot swale to offset stormwater runoff. He noted that property owners tend to neglect swales any smaller than this, and eventually they become inoperable and disappear. He added that the LDRs provide that the City has the right to require maintenance and operability of all stormwater facilities. Mr. Lambertson asked if the 400 square foot provision could be replaced with 10% of lot area to which Mr. Carper replied no because it would result in a disproportionate advantage to owners of large lots. Mr. Carper reminded the Board that, as currently written, the LDRs require anyone increasing their stormwater runoff must provide on-site retention. This proposed provision is an attempt to provide some relief. Mr. Boyer noted that not all stormwater necessarily drains to the street, and asked if allowances were made for natural retention bodies. Mr. Carper explained that property owners had the opportunity to provide topographic surveys showing sufficient natural storage, and if such was confirmed, he would be inclined to waive or grant a deviation to the storage requirement. Ms. Drysdale agreed that it seemed obvious that there was already language that allowed the City Engineer latitude in making a judgment as to this requirement; however, Mr. Lambertson reiterated that he would like to see some credit given for swimming pools. Ms. Doerr asked if the Board had any other questions or comments for either Mr. Carper or Mr. Griffin. With there being none, each was thanked for attending and they both departed. The Board then returned to discussion of revisions to the zoning districts. Ms. Doerr noted that the Commercial General (CG) Zoning District is the only one in which hotels are allowed, and that is only with an approved Use-by-Exception. She said that she proposed that hotels be made fully permissible within CGS noting that they would be required to comply with all other regulations such as parking, landscaping, etc, as part of the development review process that precedes issuance of a building permit. Page 3 of 4 Minutes of the November 4, 2009 rescheduled meeting of the Community Development Board In 24-114, Central Business District, Ms. Doerr explained that the provisions for minimum lot or site requirement were irrelevant due to the nature of the Town Center. She also noted that the maximum height is limited to twenty-five feet (25') which is less than the thirty-five feet (35') allowed in the rest of the City, and may be a constraining factor in terms of commercial development and redevelopment. The Board supported returning the height limit to 35' in the CBD. Finally, due to the lack of sufficiently large tracts of land qualified to be developed as Planned Unit Developments (PUD), Ms. Doerr said that she is recommending the removal of PUDs, and replacement with a new Special Planned Area (SPA) Zoning District. She stated that existing PUDs would remain classified as such, but the new SPA district would provide a flexible means of developing smaller infill parcels. Ms. Doerr said that she would get the final section of the LDRs out to the Board for review and discussion at the next meeting, scheduled for November 17~'. Additionally, a revised Zoning Map showing the dissolution of RG-1 & RG-lA into RG Zoning District, and RG-2 & RG-3 into RG-M Zoning District would be prepared. Upon completion of review, the Board could make a single motion to send the revisions to the Commission for final action. 6. OTHER BUSINESS NOT REQUIRING ACTION. None. 7. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Lambertson adjourned the meeting at 8:23 pm. Chris Lambertson, Chairman Attest Page 4 of 4