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