Loading...
01-17-17 CDB Minutes v J _ Sz1 "i101119r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD January 17th, 2017 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL. The meeting was called to order at 6:00pm. All board members were present except for Ms. Simmons and Mr. Stratton. New regular board member Mr. Steve Mandelbaum, was welcomed. He has taken the seat of Mr. Harley Parkes. Alternate board member Judy Workman and new alternate member Thomas Hindle, were asked to join the Board to fill the absent seats. A. Selection of Chair and Vice Chair Chair Paul moved to postpone the selection of a Chair and Vice Chair for the Board, as two regular Board members were absent. The motion to postpone the selection carried unanimously. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. A. Minutes of October 18, 2016 Ms. Lanier motioned to approve the minutes as written. Mr. Elmore seconded. The minutes were approved unanimously. 3. OLD BUSINESS. None. 4. NEW BUSINESS. Page 1 of 8 A. 16-SPPR-269 (Linda Dunlap) Request for plat approval as required by Chapter 24,Article 4 of the Code of Ordinances at Selva Marina Unit 1, Parts of Lots 28 and 29 (aka 1251 Selva Marina Circle). Staff Report Planner Reeves introduced the item and showed a map of the property in question. The property sits at the end of a cul-de-sac. It is in a RS-L zoning district, and has a future land use designation of RL. The lot was originally platted as part of Selva Marina unit 1 and currently has an existing Single Family Home on the site. In 2014, the same property came before the Community Development Board with a Variance request to reduce the requirement for width at the building restriction line. The Board requested that the applicant instead come back and plat the property with a greater building restriction line that would meet the code requirements and would, therefore, not require a Variance. The applicant did this and the re-plat was approved first by the Community Development Board and then by the City Commission. One of the conditions of that prior approval, however, was that the existing home on the property be demolished or otherwise make the property division conforming within 120 days of that approval. This never happened. Therefore, the approval by the City Commission became void. For this reason, the property is now before the Community Development Board again, requesting plat approval. Planner Reeves explained that this current request for plat approval is slightly different than the request from 2014, and noted that the driveway orientation and area near the street may be better than as was outlined in the prior request. He expounded on the details of the proposed plat and explained that the proposed plat does meet the applicable code requirements for building restriction line width as well as the code requirements for the applicable zoning district. He noted that the plat request has been reviewed by the appropriate City departments and they have found no outstanding issues with it. Planner Reeves then outlined some analysis and concerns pertaining to the plat request. He gave some history of the property including the original plat and the covenants that pertained to it. Page 2 of 8 He gave some area context to the lot and showed that it is the largest remaining lot in the original platted area, and would allow up to 5 units if a PUD were approved. Planner Reeves noted that the action required of the Board tonight, is that they recommend approval or denial of the plat request to The City Commission. He asked that a condition be placed upon the property pending approval, of 180 days from approval to conform to the lot division,whether through demolition or renovation of the current home on the property. The applicant would then have an additional year to file the Plat. Planner Reeves noted that the 180 day requirement was at the request of the applicant. Applicant Comment Jeremy Hubsch of 1733 9th St N., Jacksonville Beach, FL, stated that he is the representative of the applicant and asked that the 180 requirement be 180 days from end of the Property's lease which is July 1st, 2017. Planner Reeves asked the applicant to confirm that a requirement be that platting would be recorded within one year of Commission approval. The applicant concurred with this. With no more questions from the Board for the applicant, Chair Paul opened the floor to public comment. Public Comment With no public comment, Chair Paul opened the Board Discussion. Board Discussion Chair Paul and Mr. Reichler agreed that 180 days to comply from the lease date of July 1, 2017 was reasonable. Motion Ms. Lanier made a motion to recommend approval of 16-SPPR-269 to the City Commission with the conditions: 1.) that the existing home be demolished within 180 days of July 1, 2017; and 2.) that the plat be recorded within 1 year of Commission approval. Mr. Reichler seconded. The motion was carried unanimously. B. 16-ZVAR-281 (PUBLIC HEARING) (Henry Osborne and Rena Coughlin) Page 3 of 8 Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to increase the allowable projection of open porches into the rear yard from 48 inches as required by Section 24-83(b) to 6 feet to allow an open porch at Ocean Grove Unit No 1 Part of Lot 89 Block 1 (aka 1632 Beach Avenue). Staff Report Planner Reeves introduced the item. The property is located in the RG-M (Residential General, Multi-Family) zoning district. It is a Single-Family home. The proposed plan is to extend an existing porch into the rear yard to a point 14 ft from the rear property line. The need for variance is derived from the City of Atlantic Beach code of ordinances Section 24-83(b) which allows open porches, including eaves and other elements to project 48 inches into rear property line. The minimum rear yard within this zoning district is 20 feet, which allows for a 16ft rear yard for open porches. The proposed porch is 14ft form the rear property line. Planner Reeves noted that the proposed porch has already been constructed, and was discovered to have been built without a permit. A stop work order was issued for the construction of the porch and it was found that a Variance would be necessary for the Planning Department to approve the constructed porch, as the angle of the rear yard lot line causes a triangular area of the porch and its roof to be within the rear yard setback. He displayed a survey that portrayed this. Mr. Reichler questioned the timeline of the displayed survey(which had the constructed porch on it. He asked if the survey was done by the surveyor after the construction of the deck in question. Staff confirmed that this was the case. Mr. Reichler then asked if a building permit application had been submitted yet to the City.Staff answered that one had not been applied for, but that the applicant had been found to be constructing the deck without a permit. Mr. Reichler then questioned if this was a Code Enforcement issue that should be dealt with accordingly. Staff answered that it was not, because the applicant was making efforts to resolve the Code violation. Ms. Durden, the City Attorney, commented that this [coming before the Community Development Board for a Variance] was not an uncommon way for an applicant to resolve a code violation they have committed. Page 4 of 8 Mr. Reichler asked if the City had inspected this construction to ensure that it meets FL Building Codes. Staff answered that the City had not conducted such inspections. Mr. Reichler questioned if the deck would need to go through the building permit process still, regardless of whether or not the Board approved the variance. Staff confirmed that this was the case. Staff clarified that a Variance approval from the Board would only approve the location of a structure on the property, but would not circumvent the necessary approval of the actual structure from City Staff, namely,the Building Department,through the building permit application process. Applicant Comment Rena Coughlin of 1632 Beach Ave Atlantic Beach, FL, spoke and explained that she was trying to get into compliance with the code, as she understands the necessary requirements. Ms. Lanier asked Ms. Coughlin if, until she got stop work order, she thought everything with the job was fine. Ms. Coughlin answered that she did think everything was fine up until that point. With no more questions from the Board for the applicant, Chair Paul opened the floor to public comment. Public Comment With no public comment, Chair Paul opened the Board Discussion. Board Discussion Chair Paul commented that it seems to be common that a contractor makes a mistake and the homeowner ends up coming to the before Board asking for mercy. The question of responsibility for obtaining a building permit was raised. Staff commented that ultimately it is the property owner's responsibility. Mr. Reichler commented that he believed the situation at hand was more of a code enforcement issue, however, the Community Development Board needed to look at the Variance request and the owner's reasoning for requesting a Variance. He mentioned the two possible conditions of approval given by the owner. He commented that he did not feel that the property owner met the necessary requirements to meet either condition. Page 5 of 8 Mr. Elmore stated that the applicants are neighbors and friends of his, however, the board doesn't want to set a precedent of granting one person a favor, but that they need to be impartial in regards to enforcing the Land Development Regulations. Motion Mr. Reichler motioned to deny 16-ZVAR-281 finding that the owners have not met the requirements for grounds for approval. Mr. Hindle seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 5. REPORTS. A. Comprehensive Plan Evaluation Update Staff introduced the item and explained that every 7 years, Florida Statutes require an update to the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan addresses future land use, schools, transportation, environmentally sensitive areas, etc. Our City's date is coming up in March for letting the State know what the City will intend to do, whether make updates to our Plan or keep it as-is. Essentially, the Comprehensive Plan directs what the Zoning Code should be. Staff asked the Board if they had a recommendation as to which direction they believe the City should go with their Plan, whether making minor versus major changes to the Comprehensive Plan. City Attorney Ms. Durden clarified that the board was not being asked to make recommendations denoting formal action, however, they were being asked to offer some ideas and discussion in regards to what they would like to see regarding the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Durden also mentioned that there are statutory updates that the City is, at minimum, legally required to begin implementing. Mr. Elmore stated that he would rather focus on the City's Land Development Regulations which he believes need to be reviewed in order to better fit our community. Staff gave further definition to a Comprehensive Plan versus City Code. Chair Paul concurred with Mr. Elmore,that the City's Land Development Regulations could use some updates. Mr. Reichler made two recommendations. The first, was that the Future Land Use of the Comprehensive Plan be made more consistent with the Current Zoning of land. The second Page 6 of 8 recommendation, was that the future Land Use be made consistent with what citizens of Atlantic Beach are expecting so there are no surprises moving forward, referencing the Gate situation. Ms. Workman mentioned the Beautification Committee formed last year. She stated her opinion that this play a definite part in all of this. Chair Paul asked Staff if they would be working with the Board on this Comprehensive Plan or if an outside committee would be brought in. Mr. Elmore gave his opinion that Staff and local experts, rather than outside persons, be brought in to help in this process as they are familiar with the Community and the material at hand. Mayor Reeves stated that this revisiting of the City's Comprehensive Plan will be a partnership between the City Commission and the Community Development Board working towards updating our Code in order to best serve our Community today. Mayor Reeves then stated his disdain for the current issues surrounding Administrative Variances in the City, as an example of current processes that should be reconsidered by the City Commission and the Community Development Board. Chair Paul requested that the Comprehensive Plan be added to the agenda for the next Community Development Board Meeting. The topic of Administrative Variances was raised by the Board for discussion. Staff introduced the applicable City code section (Sec. 24-48(h))and purpose of Administrative Variances. The history and intended purpose of Administrative Variances was also discussed. It was noted that Administrative Variances could theoretically be granted at any point before or after construction. The Board discussed the appropriateness of Administrative Variances, with the question of checks and balances raised. Chair Paul asked that a monthly report of administrative variances granted be put on the Community Development Board's monthly agenda. B. Staffing Update Staff notified the board that Community Development Director Drew DeCandis is no longer with City. Planner Reeves is again interim director. Page 7 of 8 6. ADJOURNMENT. Mr. Elmore moved to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Lanier seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously and the meeting was adjourned at 7:20pm. Brea Paul, Chair Attest Page 8 of 8