Loading...
04-18-17 CDB Minutes v S!-rL,�i' .• y MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD April 18th, 2017 I 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL. The meeting was called to order at 6:01pm. All members were present, including alternates. Also present were Planner Derek Reeves, Board Secretary Grace Mackey and representing the firm Lewis, Longman and Walker, Mrs. Brenna Durden. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. None. I 3. OLD BUSINESS. A. 17-UBEX-417 (PUBLIC HEARING) (Sean Monahan) Request for a use-by-exception as permitted by Section 24- 63,to allow an off-street parking lot as described by Section 24-162 for the businesses located at 625 and 645 Atlantic Boulevard in the Commercial General zoning district at 630 Sturdivant Avenue. Staff Report Planner Reeves explained that the request was to use the lot in question as a stand-alone parking lot for adjoining and nearby businesses to the south (namely, 619, 625 and 645 Atlantic Blvd.) Access to the lot will come from Sturdivant Ave, as well as through a pathway between the lot and the adjoining lot to the south. The lot is in the Commercial General zoning district both currently as well as for future land use. Pagel of 15 The need for a use-by-exception comes from the code requirement that stand-alone off-street parking within 400 feet from the property it serves requires a use-by-exception. Also required in this circumstance are shrubs along the perimeter. As there are no adjoining residential properties, the requirement that no illumination affect adjoining residential properties is mute. In this circumstance there must also be no sales, service or business activity of any kind in the parking area and none is proposed. In addition to this, any sidewalks on-site must have curb-stops in front of them; there are no public or private sidewalks proposed on this property. Possible concerns include: visibility around the curve, as Sturdivant Avenue curves significantly at this part of the street. Another consideration given by staff was that of parking calculations on the properties to be served, but noted that all have the ability to add more spaces under the code. Planner Reeves presented two possible conditions of approval. First that all shrubs planted be as far off the property line along Sturdivant Avenue as possible while still being in the required landscape area. Second, that all lighting be shielded or otherwise pointed away from the Residential properties to the north. Mr. Elmore questioned how storm water retention would be mitigated. He also asked what other landscaping would be required. Planner Reeves explained that retention swales would be on site. In addition, he explained that to meet the 1 tree for every 50 linear feet requirement, around 7 trees would be planted. Mr. Reichler questioned the impervious surface requirements. Planner Reeves explained that the lot has a limit of 70%impervious surface that will be calculated by staff when the proposed construction goes through the permitting process. Applicant Comment Sean Monahan, 13754 Bermuda Cay Ct., Jacksonville, FL 32225 introduced himself as the applicant. He explained that he is trying to expand parking for customers up front (of Monahan jewelers) by providing employee parking on the property in question. He proposed changing his site plan as needed to meet impervious surface calculations, and noted that he would meet any required landscaping and water retention requirements as well. Page 2 of 15 Public Comment Justin Henderson, 132 Magnolia St., Atlantic Beach 32233, stated that he lives directly across from the property in question. He expressed concern about the blind corner that the property lies on, especially considering how quickly pedestrians and drivers come around the corner. He stated his concern that increased traffic from the proposed parking lot would add to the traffic issues. Steve Jarett, 3741 1st St South, Jacksonville Beach 32250, gave his support for the proposed parking lot. Chris Jorgensen,92 W 3rd St,Atlantic Beach 32233,gave his support for the proposed parking lot. He commented that there are already other commercial parking lots along Sturdivant Ave. He believes that the proposed parking lot is congruent with the commercial- residential mix on Sturdivant Ave. With no further public comment, public comment was closed. Board Discussion Chair Paul gave her support for the applicant's attempt to provide a solution for the parking issue they are facing. Ms. Lanier commented that she sees cars parked on the lot already, however, the current appearance of the lot is rather disreputable. She stated her favor for improving the appearance of the site. Mr. Stratton agreed with Ms. Lanier's comments. Mr. Reichler opposed the application because the applicant did not include the impervious surface calculations in their application. He expressed his concern that the City would not enforce its impervious surface requirements. Ms. Simmons asked staff what the impervious surface allowance was for commercial lots. Planner Reeves answered that it is 70%. Ms. Simmons then questioned how the Public Works Department arrived at its calculations during their reviews. Planner Reeves noted that he could not speak to the plan reviews done by the Public Works Department, but clarified a few code specifics regarding impervious surface calculations. Mr. Stratton recommended that a motion be made to approve 17- UBEX-417 with the condition that staff ensure that a maximum of 70% impervious surface be allowed. Page 3 of 15 Motion Ms. Lanier motioned to recommend approval of 17-UBEX-417 as written to the City Commission. Mr. Stratton seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 4. NEW BUSINESS. A. 17-ZVAR-457 (PUBLIC HEARING) (Jen Smith and Brett Nansen) Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to reduce the rear yard setback from 10 feet as required by Ordinance No. 90-87-116 (Selva Linkside PUD) to 8 feet to allow an addition at Selva Linkside Unit 1 Lot 38 (aka 1124 Linkside Court West). I Staff Report Planner Reeves introduced item. The property is within a PUD with RL (residential low) future land use. It is surrounded on all sides by residential lots and is near the Public Works water treatment facility. The proposed plan is to add onto and enclose an existing screen porch; a corner of the addition will be 8 feet from the rear property line. The need for variance comes from the Selva Linkside PUD requirement that the rear yard setback be 10 feet; the applicant is requesting 8 feet. Ms. Lanier questioned what the side and rear yard setback requirements are of the PUD. Planner Reeves explained that they vary depending upon the lot. He stated that in this situation, he believes the side yard setbacks to be 5 foot on each side, the back to be 10 feet and the front to be either 20 feet or 10 feet,depending upon how your garage door is oriented. Mr. Reichler questioned what the PUD's requirements were for impervious surface. Planner Reeves stated that the PUD does not call out any specific requirements for impervious surface. As such, the City defaults to its standard requirements per code. For residential lots, this is 50%. Mr. Reichler inquired as to the current impervious surface calculations were for the property in question. Planner Reeves answered that they did not know, however, they would find out during the building permitting plan review process. Page 4 of 15 Applicant Comment Brett Nansen, 1124 Linkside Court W, Atlantic Beach 32233, introduced himself as the applicant and property owner. He stated that the purpose of their request is to try and make their living space more usable. He explained how their house is not parallel to their lot line and their intention is to square off the room that the requested addition would be added to. Ms. Lanier questioned how much additional space it would create for the applicant. Mr. Nansen answered that under the roof it would be a space of approximately 8 feet by 16 feet and the addition would extend the room by 5 feet. Mr. Elmore questioned the use of the room. Mr. Nansen answered that it is a living/media/TV room. Mr. Elmore explained that there are possible alternative building plans to the Variance in question that would not violate setbacks. Public Comment Julie Rabb, 1125 Sandpiper Lane, Atlantic Beach 32233, introduced herself as the neighbor directly behind the applicant. Ms. Rabb opposed bringing her and her neighbor's property lines any closer. She stated that it would not be aesthetically pleasing, it would increase the drainage from rain onto her property and she also expressed her concern for increased noise near her property. In addition to this, Ms. Rabb commented on the precedent that the approval of this Variance would set. With no additional comment public comment was closed. Board Discussion Mr. Elmore expressed that the request for this Variance is a self- imposed hardship. He referenced past votes of the Community Development Board where similar requests were made and denied. He noted that he did not wish to set a precedent by approving this request and noted the Board's responsibility to enforce the Land Development Regulations. Ms. Lanier also expressed her lack of support for the Variance request. Mr. Reichler gave concern for impervious surface percentages on the property. He also noted that even though the property was in a cul-de-sac, this did not constitute it having an irregular shape. At the same time, he commented that he had seen the Community Page 5 of 15 Development Board approve many similar requests in the past and, therefore, he would be in favor of this request. Motion Mr. Elmore motioned to deny 17-ZVAR-457 on the grounds that the request constituted a self-imposed hardship. Ms. Lanier seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-1 with Mr. Reichler as the dissenting vote. B. 17-ZVAR-461 (PUBLIC HEARING) (Atillio Cerqueira) Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to increase the maximum fence height from 4 feet in the front yard and a side yard adjacent to a street on a corner lot as required by Sections 24-157(b)(1) and 24-157(c)(1) to 8 feet to allow an 8 foot fence along the 14th Street West front and Hibiscus Street side property lines at Section "H" Block 252 Lots 1 to 5 (aka 400 Levy Road). Staff Report Planner Reeves gave site context: The property is zoned CG Commercial General (CG), with Commercial (CM) future land use. To the north of the property are Light-Industrial zoned properties and to the south are Residential properties, with Commercial properties to the east and west. The request is to construct an 8 foot fence on the property along W 14th St and along the southern 90 feet of Hibiscus St. He noted that the fence has already been constructed and that this was caught by Code Enforcement. This construction is what the applicant would now like approval for from the Community Development Board. The need for a variance is derived from Section 24-157(b)(1) which requires a 4 foot fence along the front yard of this property. Due to the nature of this property (it fronts W 14th St as well as Levy Rd., which do not intersect) it technically has two front yards. In effect, this imposes the applicable accessory structure and fence restrictions for front yards. In addition to this, Section 24-157(c)(1) limits the fence height to 4 feet when, on a corner lot, the right-of- way is less than 50 feet. In this case, Hibiscus and W 14th St are both 50 foot rights-of-way. Planner Reeves displayed a map of the property that delineated multiple lines along the property where different fence heights Page 6 of 15 would be allowed per code (based upon their setbacks from the property lines.) Ms. Lanier questioned the allowed fence height of 6 feet displayed on the map. Planner Reeves explained that when a Commercial property abuts a Residential property, an 8 foot fence is allowed along the adjoining property line(s). Otherwise, the maximum allowed fence height along the yard is 6 feet, so long as the fence is setback far enough from the property line.The property in question falls into the latter category. Planner Reeves then explained the applicable sight-line distance requirement (115 feet) per code Section 19-5 as the speed limit is 25mph on the Street. He displayed a map estimating the current sight-line distance with the existing 8 foot fence. The map displayed that a portion of the fence was within the sight triangle and, as such, the fence did not meet the code requirement per Section 19- 5. Because of this, even if the Board approved the existing fence per the Variance request, the applicant would still need to request a Waiver from code Section 19-5 for the sight-distance requirements therein; this would be reviewed by the City Commission. Planner Reeves noted that there is also an existing code complaint on the property for outside storage of commercial vehicles and equipment in the yard. As such, the applicant built the fence in order to screen the property from the outside storage. Mr. Elmore clarified the code violations and consequent requests in effect of the applicant. It was explained that both the fence height as well as the sight-line distance were in violation of current codes. Mr. Reichler questioned whether or not the fence was built without a permit. Planner Reeves clarified that the fence was built without a permit, however, the applicant later submitted an application for the fence which has been denied by City Staff. He noted that the illegal fence was discovered by Code Enforcement, because of the other code case on the property (for outside storage.) Mr. Reichler questioned who would consequently inspect a permitted fence to ensure it met code requirements. Planner Reeves answered that our Building Inspector or a contract inspector of the City, would inspect this. Page 7 of 15 Ms. Lanier questioned if landscaping requirements would come into effect if the applicant pushed the fence back and lowered the fence height in order to meet current code requirements. Planner Reeves answered that landscaping requirements would come into effect only if the applicant were to do an improvement on the property with a value in excess of 25% of the property. Therefore, there are currently no landscaping requirements for the applicant. Applicant Comment Atillio Cerqueira, 36 W 6th St, Atlantic Beach 32233, stood to speak as the applicant and property owner. He explained that his tenant put up the fence, he did not. Mr.Cerqueira explained that his tenant received the notification of code violation for his outside storage. He then put up the fence and applied for the permit. Mr. Cerqueira then noted that he is advocating with the City Commission to change the code requirements for properties such as this one in the City. He then stated that he would like to keep the 8 foot fence on the property, with the condition that he could pull the fence back 5 feet from the property line(s) in order to remediate the line of sight issue. He mentioned that he is not opposed to landscaping either. Mr. Cerqueira spoke of other similar properties in the City which have similar fences to the one he is requesting. Public Comment Chris Jorgensen,92 W 3rd St,Atlantic Beach 32233,commented that residential neighbors in the City's Light-Industrial area often complain of not wanting to see their [Commercial] neighbor's properties. Brian Milner, 1290 Hibiscus St,Atlantic Beach 32233. Stated that he lives directly adjacent to the property. Mr. Milner stated that he is in favor of the current fence which shields the property and noted its aesthetically pleasing factor. He gave his opinion that the difference between a 6 and an 8 foot fence was minimal. With no additional comment public comment was closed. Board Discussion Ms. Lanier commented on the limitations that the Community Development Board has when trying to find compromise between the light-industrial area and neighboring residential properties,due to the current Land Development Regulations. Page 8 of 15 Ms. Simmons disagreed and noted Board discussions about fence heights in the City, that is, that the desire is to limit fence heights so as to not "wall-off" the City. She commented that the property could construct a 6 foot fence further back on the property without breaking Codes. She referenced past Variance approvals of taller fence heights that she believes were later regretted. Mr. Elmore agreed with Ms. Simmons and noted that the 8 foot fence in question presented multiple issues, including line-of-sight issues, the appearance of walling-off the street. Chair Paul reminded Board that recent similar fence variances have been opposed by the Board. She gave her disapproval of the 8 foot fence and believes that the request is a self-imposed hardship. Motion Ms.Simmons moved to deny 17-ZVAR-461. Ms. Lanier seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. 5. REPORTS. A. Administrative Variances Approved No Administrative Variances were approved since the last Community Development Board regular meeting. Planner Reeves did ask the Board for their opinion on a City Policy related to Section 24-48(h). He explained how if the Director were to grant an Administrative Variance, it would have to be on at least of the grounds from Section 24-64(d), the same grounds of approval used by the Community Development Board. He then presented an example that could arise where a corner-lot property has setbacks that do not come into exact code compliance. In this example, all of the setback violations were within the 5% allotted deviation wherein an Administrative Variance could be granted. He then asked how the Board would like Staff to handle such a situation. The Board noted that the code allowed Staff to make a decision so long as it was within the 5%deviation,therefore,they were unsure as to Staff's question. Planner Reeves clarified that he is unsure which ground of approval staff should apply (per Section 24-64(d)) in this situation and whether or not staff should bring this sort of situation before the Community Development Board. Page 9 of 15 Mr. Elmore questioned if the Board could make a recommendation that a seventh condition of approval be added that a minor design field error is made within 5%of the standard requirement. Planner Reeves commented that that would be a Code change. The Board then noted that they would be in the same predicament as staff, should the issue come before them, as none of the listed conditions of approval apply to the situation. City Attorney Brenna Durden commented that the problem may lie within Section 28-48(h), the section which describes an Administrative Variance and when it may be granted.She explained that this section states that this type of Variance may be granted "only with written justification as set forth within subsection 24- 64(d)", however, nothing within the latter code section grants permission to grant an Administrative Variance based upon the conditions listed in 28-48(h). Therefore, the criteria listed for an approval of an Administrative Variance within Section 28-48(h) defeat themselves, by referring back to the standard 6 criteria of approval listed within 24-64(d). It was her opinion that the Section (28-48(h)) be rewritten. She also commented on the conditions listed within 28-48(h) (i.e. 5% of the standard requirement) and questioned if the Board wished this to be the criteria. Chair Paul informed staff that if they feel uncomfortable making a decision in these situations, to bring it before the Board. Mr. Elmore commented that the purpose of this code allowance is to help streamline government when minor errors occur. He noted that it requires staff to be privy to whether or not an error is truly minor and accidental, versus egregious and done with ill-intent. Ms. Simmons gave her opinion that Staff needs support if they are making these decisions, as such decisions (to grant Administrative Variances) often come with dispute from various affected parties. Mr. Elmore then reiterated his desire to recommend a seventh ground for approval of a Variance that would meet the situations that fall within the Administrative Variance Section (28-48(h)). He requested that City Counsel generate the language for such a ground that could be recommended for addition to the Code to the City Commission. Page 10 of 15 It was clarified that in the meantime, if staff is unsure of what decision to make in a situation that falls within Section 28-48(h), they may bring the situation before the Community Development Board. B. Staffing Update The City is currently interviewing for a Planner. The second round of interviews will be conducted on Friday, with the intention of having the new Planner begin work sometime within the first half of May. No changes to the position of Planner Reeves have been made; he will remain Interim Director. The Community Development Department has also hired a part time Administrative Assistant in order to help with general clerical work. C. Discussion Related to the City Commission Special Called Meeting on a Community Redevelopment Area and Form Based Codes Chair Paul requested that a discussion item regarding the previous week's special called meeting of the City Commission, be added this this agenda. Four members of the Community Development Board were present at this meeting. At the meeting two items were discussed: The first, was the plan for the Community Redevelopment Area along Mayport Road. The second item discussed, was the City Code rewrite with the idea of form-based codes as a basis for the rewrite. Staff did not have a presentation for this agenda item but offered to answer any questions that the Board may have. Chair Paul commented that after sitting through the meeting, she understands that the City Commission is looking to the Community Development Board for direction in regards to both the CRA plan along Mayport Road as well as to how to move forward with the Code re-write (i.e. whether not to move forward with a form-based code versus staying with the City's current Euclidian-based Code.) The discussion was then broken into the two separate items: The CRA along Mayport Road and the Code re-write. 1. CRA Mayport Road Staff explained that a CRA study has already been done and was presented to the City Commission last September. Page 11of15 Staff then defined a CRA and explained that it is a defined area that is deemed to be blighted (there are State definitions of this as well, such as, narrow right-of ways, poor connectivity of streets etc. which hinder or prevent redevelopment of the area). Once this area is defined,the tax year is locked and then every year after this, the tax increase goes into a dedicated fund that is used to do improvement projects within the CRA defined area. In our City's CRA situation, we would also collaborate with the City of Jacksonville and would need to approach them about contributing taxes. Staff explained that the City Commission is currently discussing how to approach the City of Jacksonville about this, should the City even wish to. Staff then explained that the study conducted looked at the Mayport Corridor and at all of the Commercial, Industrial and Residential properties off of it. Areas within the study include, but are not limited to: Donner neighborhood, Francis neighborhood, the area along Mayport Road all the way to the Marsh, Dutton Island Road (but not the Marsh). The CRA has a base term of 20 years, after which time, the terms are abolished. Staff explained that The City Commission has decided to move forward with pursuing our CRA but are now trying to decide how to approach the City of Jacksonville, and, what to ask of them. As this is a community development effort, the Commission is asking for the Board's input on this. Mr. Mandelbaum commented that he did not see the City of Jacksonville being very interested in our CRA pursuits as their portion of the Mayport Corridor is not a priority to them in regards to redevelopment. Ms. Lanier concurred with Mr. Mandelbaum and gave her opinion that the City of Jacksonville would not see their property in the CRA as a development priority. She also mentioned that the City of Jacksonville is currently creating their budget for the next fiscal year and she did not see this as a good time to ask them to contribute financially. Ms. Lanier also commented that the West side of Mayport Road is organically changing and growing in a positive direction. She argued that rather than waiting on the CRA, the City could move forward now with helping what is already happening in that are, exponentially grow. Mr. Elmore likewise argued for abandoning the CRA and instead,for letting the organic growth happening along Mayport Road take Page 12 of 15 place. He commented that if there is a need for the CRA in future years, the City could approach the idea again. Chair Paul questioned if increased Code Enforcement involvement along Mayport Road would help with the various issues along Mayport Road. Mr. Reichler argued that before he feels comfortable making a decision about moving forward or not with the CRA, the City first needs to be fully staffed and he would like to review the CRA as he has yet to do so. Chair Paul concurred that she too would like to review the CRA. She requested that the discussion regarding the CRA be continued next month, but that it appeared that the Board was currently not in favor of moving forward with the CRA. 2. Form Based Code Rewrite Ms. Simmons commented that she would need a formal presentation on what Form Based Code is, before she could make any decisions regarding it. Planner Reeves commented that Commissioner Waters presented this as an optional approach for our Code re-write. He also expounded on the definition of form-based code. In essence, form- based codes explicitly define how structures may be built, from height to exact setbacks, etc. It eliminates the use component of a property, by explicitly defining how a structure must be built on any given property and that will dictate how the property is used. He then noted that our Code re-write would most likely be a mix of Euclidian zoning and Form-Based codes as we have a pre-existing community that we must work with. Mr. Elmore commented that Form-Based Codes can be restrictive as it is so definitive about what people can do. He argued that it can work well with a new community, but it is problematic with pre- existing communities such as ours. Chair Paul argued that employing Form-Based Code would increase the work for staff (specifically in regards to enforcing the codes). She also argued that it may discourage businesses from moving here as it would place stringent restrictions on what the building and building facade would have to look like. Chair Paul then Page 13 of 15 requested a presentation from staff at the next regular Community Development Board meeting on Form-Based codes. She also requested that staff give the Board local examples of Cities that used Form-Based Code so that she can look into how it has impacted their communities. Mr. Reichler argued that before a decision is made regarding Form- Based Code, the very problems and objectives regarding the current Code need to be made so that the City knows how to approach the re-write. Mr. Mandelbaum questioned whether or not the City's code should even be re-written, or rather, if the Board and the City should use its resources and staff toward more productive goals. Mr. Reichler questioned if Form-Based Code re-write could possibly apply to only a portion of the City Code. Chair Paul commented that before the Code re-write could be undertaken, the City needs to be fully staffed and the City [Board and Commission] needs to have a better of understanding of what direction to move in for re-writing the Code. Ms. Lanier concurred that making a decision about Form-Based Code at this point is a solution in search of a problem, that is, it is a solution for re-writing the City Code even though the very problems with the City's Code have yet to be identified. Mr. Reichler also questioned why the City's Code needs to be re- written and how much of the code falls into this category. Chair Paul argued that there are probably many changes that need to be made. Mr. Reichler commented that a list of items that need addressing in the code needs to be made. Ms. Simmons commented that the Board is not receiving a clear picture of what the Community desires as far as a code re-write is concerned, because the Board only hears from the small portion of people that approach them wanting a change. She noted the extensive nature of re-writing a code. The Board discussed looking at requests that have come before them in addition to staff's opinions on what they believe needs to be changed based upon the situations that come to them. What's Page 14 of 15 more, The Commission hears from their constituents and these concerns need to be taken into account as well. Chair Paul commented on the Community Development Board's role as the City's Planning Agency and therefore, their role in the approach to the City's Code re-write. Mr. Reeves commented that the City Commission has discussed having a joint meeting between themselves and the Community Development Board in order to discuss these things. He explained that the City Commission wants the Board to be involved in the process of re-writing the code and would like some direction from the Board as to how to move forward with it. 6. ADJOURNMENT. Ms. Simmons moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Elmore seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously and the meeting was adjourned at 8:32pm. Brea Paul, Chair Attest Page 15 of 15