8-21-12 Minutes of the August 21, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
n el
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
August 21, 2012
1. CALL TO ORDER. — 6:OOpm
Chair Lambertson verified presence of a quorum with the attendance of Jason Burgess, Kelly
Elmore, Kirk Hansen, Chris Lambertson, Harley Parkes, Brea Paul and Patrick Stratton. The
meeting was called to order at 6:00pm. Matthew Schellhorn, ex officio board member and
community planning liaison to NS Mayport, was also in attendance, along with Principal Planner
Erika Hall, Redevelopment Coordinator Lesley Resnick, Building and Zoning Director Michael
Griffin, and City Attorney Alan Jensen.
2. ADOPTION OF MEETING MINUTES — JUNE 19, 2012.
Mr. Lambertson called for a motion to approve the minutes of the June 19, 2012 regular meeting.
Mr. Parkes moved that the minutes be approved as written. Mr. Hansen seconded the motion and
it carried by a vote of 7 -0.
3. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS.
No visitors were recognized.
4. OLD BUSINESS. None.
5. NEW BUSINESS.
A. ZVAR -12- 00100027, 271 CAMELIA STREET (CONNERS)
Request for a variance from Section 24- 107(e)(2), reducing the minimum required rear
yard setback for the principal structure from twenty (20) feet to eleven and three - tenths
(11.3) feet, for the addition of a screened room with a structural roof onto the rear of the
principal structure, on a property located at 271 Camelia Street, within a Residential Two
Family (RG) zoning district.
Staff Ms. Hall reported that the applicant was seeking a variance reducing the
Report required rear yard setback for his principal structure in order to construct
a screened room with a hardened or "structural roof'. The standard
required per Section 24- 107(e)(2) is twenty (20) feet, and the applicant is
asking to reduce the required rear yard to eleven and three - tenths (11.3)
feet.
Ms. Hall explained that because porches with structural roofs have the
potential to be enclosed to create additional conditioned space within the
principal structure, they are limited as to the amount they may project into
a setback. Per section 24- 83(b), porches having structural roofs and
screen walls may encroach into required rear yards up to forty-eight (48)
inches. Alternatively, entirely screened rooms with no impervious roof,
Page 1 of 5
Minutes of the August 21, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
such as pool cages, may be located as close as five (5) feet from rear and
side yard setbacks, per section 24- 151(b)(1)L She said these provisions
were explained to the applicant when he first inquired about addition of a
screened porch to the rear of his home.
Applicant Applicant Michael Conners addressed the board and confirmed that the
Comment illustration provided by Ms. Hall was consistent with the addition he
proposed. He explained that his property is approximately 500 feet from
the Intracoastal, and a screened porch is a necessity to counter the attack
of gnats, mosquitoes and biting flies. He added that he felt such an
addition would be an improvement to his property that would, in turn,
improve the neighborhood.
Public There was no public comment.
Comment
Board Mr. Lambertson opened discussion of the application to the board, and
Discussion Mr. Stratton asked if Mr. Conners needs could be met with a screened
lanai, similar to a pool cage, which consists of both walls and roof
composed of screen. Mr. Conners responded that he did not understand
how a three (3) inch foam roof constituted a structural roof. Mr.
Lambertson replied that the impervious nature of the roof made it
structural.
Mr. Parkes explained an alternative would be to construct an accessory,
such as a screened gazebo, which could have a structural roof. Such an
accessory could be located to within five (5) feet of the rear and side lot
lines. However, it would have to be limited in size to one hundred fifty
(150 square feet and in height to twelve (12) feet. Additionally, such
accessory structures must be located a minimum of five (5) feet from
principal structures.
Mr. Burgess asked Mr. Conners if there were any conditions or
characteristics of his property that made it different from surrounding
properties, to which Mr. Conners replied no.
Mr. Lambertson directed board members to review the grounds for
approval of a variance and grounds for denial of a variance, as provided
along with the applicant.
Motion Mr. Burgess moved that the board deny the request for variance to reduce
the required rear yard setback from twenty (20) feet to eleven and three -
tenths (11.3) feet for the construction of a screened room with a
structurally hardened roof onto the rear of the principal structure, finding
that the none of the grounds for approval of a variance, as provided by
section 24 -64(d) were met.
Mr. Parkes seconded the motion and it passed unanimously, 7 -0.
Mr. Lambertson reiterated to Mr. Conners that he had several options
available to him and encouraged him to discuss these further with staff.
Page 2 of 5
Minutes of the August 21, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
B. LDR AMENDMENT, SECTION 24 -51 (NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS),
SECTION 24 -69 (FEES)
Public hearing to review proposed revisions to Section 24 -51, Notice of Public Hearings,
and Section 24 -69, Fees; to take public comment; and to make a recommendation to the
City Commission regarding said amendment.
Staff Ms. Hall explained that public hearings are integral to due process related
Report to applications that seek relief from or propose changes to land uses and
development standards. Florida statutes provide very specific directions
as to how and when public hearings should be held, and how and when
they are to be advertised, for both amendment of comprehensive plans
and associated future land use maps, and amendment of land development
regulations and zoning district map and permitted uses. And though
statutes, particularly Chapter 163 which is the Community Planning Act
of 2010, and its former incarnation as the Growth Management Act of
1985, prescribe public hearings for requests for variances from or
exceptions to adopted development standards and permissible uses, the
timing and method of notice is not as clearly defined. Essentially,
provisions for notice of these types of public hearings which result in a
development order rather than an ordinance, have been left to the design
of individual municipalities. As such, the City of Atlantic Beach has
complied with the basic requirements of posting an agenda for meetings
at which public hearings are to be held on the city bulletin board, and
posting a sign of notification on the subject property, each at least a week
before the actual hearing. But many other municipalities, Jacksonville
Beach and Neptune Beach included, are more aggressive in noticing
public hearings. More than just posting a sign on the subject property,
other municipalities also publish notices in the local newspaper and/or
send letters of notification to adjacent property owners within a certain
radius of the subject property.
Further, she explained that, in light of this, and in an effort to encourage
more transparency and increased levels of public participation in
governance of the city, commissioners had requested that staff draft
revisions to section 24 -51 which would make public notice requirements
for Atlantic Beach consistent with the other beach cities. She said that the
strike - through and underline draft before this board tonight does that.
Ms. Hall then directed board members to a chart comparing the current
provisions of section 24 -51 to the current provisions of chapter 163 and
chapter 166 (specifically, the subsection having to do with public hearings
and notification for municipal ordinances), and to the provisions of both
Jacksonville Beach and Neptune Beach, and finally to the proposed
revisions. She also noted that, due to the added expense of published
advertisements and mailed notices, she was recommending an increase in
the fee for variance applications [section 24- 69(a)(5)], from the current
$150 to $250, which is the amount also charged by the other beach cities.
No other fee increases are recommended at this time, as all others are
consistent with the other beach cities.
Page 3 of 5
Minutes of the August 21, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Public There was no public comment.
Comment
Board Mr. Stratton expressed concern over the added expense of published
Discussion advertisement and mailed notice for variances and use -by- exceptions, as
well as how the increased fee would impact potential applicants. Ms. Hall
explained that some municipalities required a flat fee for the application,
along with a variable fee for notice, depending upon the actual cost of
publication and the precise number of notices mailed out. However, she
was instructed to maintain an all- inclusive flat application fee consistent
with the other beach cities. She added that at this time, Atlantic Beach
charges at least $100 less than many municipalities, including Neptune
and Jacksonville Beach.
Mr. Lambertson, noted as an owner of property in other jurisdictions, he
felt that mailed notices were of great benefit, much more so than posted
signs, to property owners that lived out of the city or county or even state
where the public hearing was to take place.
Mr. Elmore stated that he believed delineating the requirements for
notices related to zoning and land use matters, rather than simply referring
to the Florida statutes, was a good idea, as statutes can be cumbersome to
wade through. He also said he felt the chart prepared by Ms. Hall did a
good job of summarizing and justifying the proposed revisions.
Motion Mr. Elmore moved that the board recommend adoption of the proposed
revisions to section 24 -51 and section 24 -69, as drafted by staff, finding
that these revisions are consistent with the provisions of Florida statutes
regarding public hearings for amendments to the comprehensive plan,
associated land use maps, zoning and land development regulations, as
well as the provisions of neighboring beach cities regarding land
development orders. Mr. Stratton seconded the motion, and inquired of
City Attorney Alan Jensen if he was comfortable that the proposed
revisions were sound. Mr. Jensen responded in the affirmative. Mr.
Lambertson called for the vote, and the motion carried unanimously, 7 -0.
6. OTHER BUSINESS NOT REQUIRING ACTION.
A. BEACH AVENUE DEVELOPMENT DISCUSSION
Review of staff - produced exhibits regarding development patterns, followed by virtual tour
and discussion of existing conditions along Beach Avenue.
Staff Ms. Hall presented a series of maps demonstrating some of the
Report characteristics of properties fronting on Beach Avenue, as a means to
provide the board with some background and insight into the "big
picture" of how this area had developed over the past 100 years. She then
guided board members through a Google Earth street view tour of Beach
Avenue, stopping at selected properties and reviewing the type and age of
the structure, orientation to and location in proximity to the street, as well
as calling attention to parking and landscaping issues routinely brought to
staff.
Page 4 of 5
Minutes of the August 21, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Board Board members discussed the idiosyncrasies of the Beach Avenue
Discussion properties, as well as related variance requests made over the last several
years. It was the general consensus of the board that there is no blanket
solution that can address all the potential issues that may — or may not —
arise, related to the future development or redevelopment of Beach
Avenue properties. And therefore, the board decided that there should be
no revisions to the development standards at this time, but that any
property owner wishing to deviate from the current standards should be
encouraged to do so in accordance with the provisions of section 24 -64
(variances) or section 24 -172 (residential design standards), as applicable.
Further, Mr. Hansen summarized the thoughts of the board, reiterating
that section 24- 64(b)(1) guarantees that each application for a variance
shall be considered on a case -by -case basis, and only approved on the
merits of the individual case and findings that the request is consistent
with the definition of a variance and criteria as established in section 24-
64, or 24 -172, as applicable.
Mr. Lambertson did express interest in the board looking further at right -
of -ways, in terms of private party improvements and maintenance, and
public parking, especially on those side streets leading to beach accesses.
Ms. Hall said she would do some research and gather materials for
presentation at a future meeting.
7. ADJOURNMENT — 7:27 PM
Chris Lamber son, Chairman
0 2 `1L' 6
Attest
Page 5 of 5