06-20-17 CDB Minutes v is
J
S‘
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
June 20th, 2017
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL.
The meeting was called to order at 6:05pm. All members were
present except for Patrick Stratton, who was absent. Also present
were Planner Derek Reeves, Planner Brian Broedell, Board
Secretary Grace Mackey and representing the firm Lewis, Longman
and Walker, Mrs. Brenna Durden.
Chair Paul announced that due to the high number of attendees
wishing to make public comment on items unrelated to the agenda
items, she would be inserting a public comment portion into the
agenda immediately following the discussion and vote on the
approval of minutes.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
A. Minutes of the March 21St, 2017 Regular Meeting of the
Community Development Board
Mr. Elmore motioned to approve the minutes as written. Ms.
Lanier seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
B. Minutes of the April 18th, 2017 Regular Meeting of the
Community Development Board
Mr. Elmore motioned to approve the minutes as written. Ms.
Lanier seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
Page 1 of 11
Public Comment
Susan Barker, 1938 Beachside Ct., Atlantic Beach, FL 32233
discussed a potential rezoning of a portion of the Mayport
Corridor (namely, Section H). She stated that there will soon be
a rezoning request brought before the City of Atlantic Beach to
rezone this portion of the Corridor from Commercial General
and Light Industrial to only Light Industrial. Ms. Barker
referenced the City's CRA and requested that the Board wait
until their review of the City's current zoning codes to consider
the zoning of Section H.
Steven Foraker, 387 6th St., Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, explained
that he is part of a group of active and engaged citizens who
would like a presentation to be made by a member of the
Community Development Board on the decision making
processes of the Board.
Kelly Erhayel, 1649 Norton Hill Dr., Jacksonville, FL 32225,
expressed that she was coming before the Board on behalf of
The Mayport Corridor Business Association. She explained that
the prior week,48 people gathered for the purpose of discussing
this area of Atlantic Beach. She expressed her and the other
business owners of this Association desire to thrive as long-
standing businesses in the community.
Mike Whalen, 1420 Mayport Rd., Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, also
spoke on behalf of the Mayport Corridor Business Association.
He lamented that there is some misunderstanding in the
community,regarding the goals of the Association. He alluded to
the partnership between residents and business owners within
the association and restated their primary goal of rezoning this
area of the Mayport Corridor, while working with the residents
in the area. Mr. Whalen also explained that the Association
wants better infrastructure in their area, including: sidewalks,
sewer and other utilities, public lighting, and other necessary
infrastructure that does not currently exist.
Ellen Glasser, 2060 Beach Ave, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233,
commented that she attended the meeting of the Mayport
Corridor Association which took place the week prior. She
commended those who participated at the meeting for their
efforts to include local residents in their discussion and to
educate as many people as possible about it.
Page 2 of 11
Atillio Cerqueira, 36 W 6th St,Atlantic Beach,FL 32233,spoke on
behalf of the Mayport Corridor Business Association and
mentioned that this Association includes both business owners
as well as citizens of Atlantic Beach. He stated that the
Association's goal is to unify their district in order to allow a
more diverse group of businesses to operate in the area. He
stated his desire for a more friendly approach to new businesses
coming into the area. He also argued that a large influx of
businesses would not take place, as, available real estate is
minimal, however, he would like it be easier for new businesses
moving into existing spaces to conduct their business.
Chair Paul stated that she in fact attended the meeting in
question of the Mayport Corridor Business Association,
however, she attended as an observer and not as a participant.
Ms. Lanier divulged that she had ex parte communication with
members of the Mayport Corridor Business Association.
3. NEW BUSINESS.
A. ZVAR17-0001 PUBLIC HEARING (Thomas Goodrich)
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to
increase the maximum fence height from 4 feet in the side
yard adjacent to a street on a corner lot as required by
Section 24-157(c)(1) to up to 7 feet to allow a 4 foot fence on
top of an existing retaining wall along the Beach Avenue
property line at North Atlantic Beach Unit No. 3 Part of Lots
76A, 77A, and 78A (aka 30 20th Street).
Staff Report
Planner Reeves explained that the property in question is a corner
lot on the corner of Beach Avenue and 20th St. The property is in
Multi-Family (RG-M) zoning district with a Residential Low future
Land Use. The applicant is proposing to build a 4 foot tall wood
fence on top of an existing retaining wall that has an average height
of 2.5 feet along the side of the house that is on Beach Avenue.
There was an existing fence on top of this retaining wall, however,
the fence was nonconforming. As such, in order to rebuild the
fence, the applicant needs a Variance.
The need for a variance is derived from City Code section 24-
157(c)(1) which states:
Page 3 of 11
"For corner lots located on rights-of-way that are fifty (50) feet or
less in width, no fence, wall or landscaping exceeding four (4) feet
in height, shall be allowed within ten (10) feet of any lot line which
abuts a street."
As the proposed fence will lie along Beach Avenue and as Beach
Avenue has a 25 foot right of way, this code section applies to this
situation. In addition to this,the height of fences must be measured
from the grade beneath the fence to the top and the maximum
height of a retaining wall should only be 4 feet. These three
regulations render the applicant in need of a Variance for their
proposed fence construction.
Planner Reeves explained that Staff has historically interpreted any
fence built on top of a retaining wall to be a continuation of the
retaining wall. On the other hand, if the fence is detached from the
retaining wall, it is considered a separate structure and is measured
from the grade below the fence to the top of the fence.
Planner Reeves then explained that the underlying reason for this
fence height requirement in the code is to prevent obstruction of
sight lines at intersections. In this situation, however, the necessity
of a reduced height for a fence may not be as necessary, as the
traffic flow at this intersection does not require drivers and
pedestrians to look toward the property in question, for oncoming
traffic.
Planner Reeves then mentioned that the original 4 foot tall wood
fence was issued in August 2007, with no inspections conducted on
record. In November of 2007, the retaining wall was then
permitted, however, the only inspections on record for the
retaining wall were not conducted until two years later.
Mr. Elmore questioned if the City's public parking that lies adjacent
to the property line in question along Beach Avenue, was built
within the property owner's property lines, as the applicant
purported. It was determined that a portion of the City's public
parking is located within the owner's private property lines.
Ms. Lanier asked Staff if the original fence and wall were permitted
by the City or by the property owner. Staff commented that it was
permitted by the property owner at the time.
Page 4 of 11
Applicant Comment
Tom Goodrich, 1907 Creekside Circle, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233,
introduced himself as the applicant. Mr. Goodrich challenged the
assumption that a previous owner built the preexisting retaining
wall and fence. He questioned the timeline of the permit issuances.
Mr. Goodrich then presented documents to the Board. These
documents displayed a berm which lies adjacent to the retaining
wall in discussion. He then stated that he believed that the City dug
out the Berm and as such,the public parking along it was elevated.
He explained that his request for the fence was intending to
ameliorate this situation (of a lack of privacy), as the view of his
property is more exposed due to the berm. He also stated that he
did not intend to do anything that would lead to taking away the
public parking in question.
Ms. Lanier asked the applicant if the proposed fence would be one
continuous line of fencing. The applicant responded that it would.
Mr. Reichler asked the applicant if any documentation could be
provided for the applicant's supposed removal of berm in the past.
Mr. Goodrich responded that he did not have documentation, but
that he was assuming the situation had occurred based on his
observation of the landscape.
Mr. Elmore then commented on the many previous requests for
increased fence height that the Board has denied, as it would set
precedents for increased fence heights in many other situations.
Mr. Elmore then referenced a situation where the Board did
approve a variance for fence height increase, because the property
was adjacent to a public beach access and the grade of the access
was essentially higher than that of the property. What's more, this
applicant had experienced issues with theft. Therefore, the Board
allowed this applicant to increase their fence height.
Ms. Lanier commented that she remembered the aforementioned
case, however, the beach access was only a few feet from that
applicant's front door in this situation.
Ms. Simmons commented on the possibility of a walled-off City,
should the many applications for increased fence height be
approved.
Page 5 of 11
I
Public Comment
Sid Jenkins, 2119 Beach Avenue, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233,
commented that he lives five houses north of property in question.
Mr. Jenkins gave first hand recount of a previously existing berm
before the current fence and wall in question were built. He gave
his support for the proposed fence replacement.
Mr. Reichler questioned if the City built the retaining wall. Mr.
Jenkins commented that he believes the City did build it but could
not remember when.
John Meserve, 2126 Beach Ave, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 gave his
support for the variance request. He commented that in this case,
the proposed fence height will have no impact on the sight-line for
the intersection it would abut.
Mr. Reichler asked Mr. Meserve if he remembered when the
retaining wall was built. Mr. Meserve responded that he did not
remember when the wall was built, however, he does believe that
the City built the retaining wall in question and he remembers a
preexisting berm.
Ellen Glasser, 2060 Beach Avenue, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233
commented that she lives two doors down from the applicant. She
gave concern for the safety of children, as the applicant has a pool
in their backyard. She commented that a barrier stronger than
hedges may be necessary in order to keep children safe. She then
gave her support for the proposed variance request.
Mr. Reeves brought to the attention of the Board a letter from a
resident who wished to give comment to the situation but could
not attend in person.
Chair Paul referenced the letter from Teresa Mazur, 1949 Seminole
Road, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, stating that Ms. Mazur had no
problem with a fence being placed on top of the retaining wall, as
long as it's not cement.
With no more public comment, the public comment portion was
closed and Chair Paul moved to Board discussion.
Board Discussion
Mr. Reichler commented that it was unusual for the Board to be
reviewing a fence proposal, without being able to see a design of
Page 6 of 11
the proposed fence. He asked Staff to clarify if the Board's vote
would be to approve or deny solely the height of the fence, not the
structure or material, etc.Staff confirmed that the Board was in fact
voting to approve or deny the fence height only, and explained that
the fence type and structure would be regulated by the Florida
Building Code.
The applicant displayed for the Board his proposed fence structure
and explained how it was designed to meet the Florida Building
Code.
Mr. Reichler questioned the reasons given by the applicant for the
variance request. He did not agree with the topographical concerns
raised, however, he gave concern for the second issue of unusual
circumstances, as the City had put parking spaces on the applicant's
private property in addition to not conforming to other City
ordinances pertaining to appropriate parking spaces.
Mr. Elmore recommended that the Board approve the proposed
variance based upon the unusual circumstances of the property, in
that it is adjacent to a beach access which has public parking. Mr.
Mandelbaum agreed with Mr. Elmore.
Mr. Reichler stated that he agreed with Mr. Elmore in this
circumstance insofar as it leads to a pathway for the applicant to
remediate the legal issues surrounding the City parking on private
property.
City Attorney Brenna Durden interjected that she had just had a
short conversation with the applicant. She stated that the applicant
is willing to address the legal needs of the City in order to be in legal
compliance while maintaining the current Public Parking spaces
(namely, a recorded license which the property owner could revoke
at whatever time they saw fit.)
Chair Paul commented that she agreed with the sentiments of Mr.
Elmore.
Motion
Mr. Elmore made a motion to approve ZVAR17-0001 with the
stipulation that it met the criteria of having surrounding conditions
and circumstances disparately impacting the property. Mr. Reichler
seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously to approve
the variance request ZVAR17-0001.
Page 7 of 11
I
B. ZVAR17-0002 PUBLIC HEARING (Kimberly Warren)
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to
decrease the side yard setback from 5 feet as required by
Section 24-108(e)(3)(a) to 0 feet to allow an open porch
addition in the side yard at Ed Smith S/D South 41 feet of Lot
10, North 9 feet of Lot 11 Block 1 (aka 1620 Jordan Street).
Staff Report
Planner Reeves gave site context. The property is located within
Residential General Multi-family (RG-M) zoning district, with a
Residential High (RH) Future Land Use. The property is on a street
that dead-ends. The Public Works water and sewer treatment
facility is nearby and Jordan Park is just to the North of the property.
Staff explained that the structure is already built. When the
structure was found to have been built without a permit, a stop
work order was placed on the work. If the variance request is
denied, the applicant will have to remove the structure. The
applicant is proposing to keep this structure,which, is less than one
foot from their property line.
The need for a variance is derived from section 24-108(e)(3)(a),
which states that the minimum side yard requirements in the RG-
M zoning for single-family dwellings are a combined fifteen (15)
total feet and five (5) minimum feet on either side. The proposed
porch is less than 1 foot from the side property line and the
opposite side yard is 15.4 feet according to the side yard.
Staff mentioned code section 24-83(b) which allows structural
projections to encroach up to 24 inches into the required side-yard
setback. Effectively,the applicant could have a 3-foot setback rather
than the usual 5 foot due to this code section.
Staff added that the door opening to this structure is the only door
of the house.
Chair Paul questioned the point at which the applicant would not
need a variance for this structure, that is, how much of the
structure would need to be removed in order to not require a
variance. Staff clarified that if the structure was a minimum of 3
feet off of the side yard property line, then it would not require a
Page 8 of 11
variance in that respect. He also commented that only the posts
and roof would need to be moved further in, as, any part of the
patio under 30 inches would be allowed to remain without a
variance.
Staff also explained that if the Variance request in question was
approved, the structure would still need to be permitted through
the City and would have to come into compliance with applicable
building codes and engineering requirements.
Applicant Comment
Andrew and Kimberly Warren, applicants and owners of 1620
Jordan St., explained that he was unaware of the building codes
applicable to constructing this patio. He stated that he spoke to the
City Inspector when the stop work order was issued and he has
since contacted a structural engineer to have engineered
documents created for the permitting process. Mr. Warren
explained that he was trying to get the variance approval prior to
proceeding with the building permitting process, as, this process
would incur quite a cost. He added that this was his only egress to
the back of the property but the area was unusable in any sort of
inclement weather.
Mr. Reichler questioned if the applicant constructed the structure.
The applicant responded that his father-in-law actually did the
construction and commented this he has prior construction
experience.
Public Comment
Shukriyyah Baker, 1549 Jordan St., Atlantic Beach, FL 32233,
stated she lives across the street from the applicant and she
commented on the aesthetically pleasing nature of the structure
and gave her support for the variance.
Board Discussion
Mr. Elmore commented that unfortunately, the structure was built
without review by the City and is a nonconforming structure. He
commented that he could not find grounds for approval, as this
seems to be a self-imposed hardship. He recommended possibly
creating a porch on another side of the house. Chair Paul agreed
with Mr. Elmore and commented on the precedent it could set for
future situations.
Page 9 of 11
Ms. Lanier clarified that the situation may be remedied by moving
the porch roof and posts back so that they were within the allowed
setbacks.
Motion
Ms. Lanier moved to deny ZVAR17-0002. Mr. Elmore seconded this
motion. The motion to deny variance request ZVAR17-0002 carried
unanimously.
4. REPORTS.
A. Administrative Variances Approved
None.
B. Staffing Update
Planner Reeves stated that a second planner, Brian Broedell, was
hired. In addition to this, he explained that the Commission gave
approval to temporarily hire a firm or an employee to lead the code
rewrite either in-house or with defined hours, for the duration of
the code rewrite process.
C. Form Based Codes/Code Rewrite
After discussion, the Board decided to not follow-through with this
presentation as it was emailed to them. Ms. Simmons requested a
copy of this presentation.
D. Mayport Business Grants (Steve Mandelbaum)
The discussion was turned over to Mr. Mandelbaum. He presented
three issues which he believes are confronting the Mayport Road
Area:
1. Beautification Needs
2. Zoning needs to be clarified
3. He would like to see the City take steps to bring more
businesses into the area.
Mr. Mandelbaum suggested the possibility of subsidizing the
bringing in of new businesses. He recommended giving grants to
new or relocating businesses, which gave money towards fixed
costs for targeted business types.
Page 10 of 11
Chair Paul commented that she may be open to giving grants for
exterior capital improvements, however, not for the reasons
proposed by Mr. Mandelbaum.
The Board discussed the current and upcoming City budget and the
possibility of money being allocated towards this purpose being
discussed. Planner Reeves commented that there was already
$50,000 allocated in this fiscal year's budget, however, he would
need to confer and confirm with the City Manager regarding these
proposals.
Mr. Elmore commented that he did nota rove of givinggrants to
pp
businesses, as he believed that government interference in
business growth was not ultimately the best for the private sector.
Ms. Lanier commented that she believes that there is dynamic and
creative growth already happening in the Mayport area. She gave
opinion that the area is already an economic engine in the
community and she commented that the government should not
interfere with their businesses, rather, the City should invest in
better infrastructure in the area, such as improved streets,
sidewalks and utilities, in addition to supportive city ordinances.
Mr. Elmore gave his support as well for public infrastructure
improvements, but not for giving grants to individual businesses.
Ms. Simmons gave her support for the proposed infrastructure
improvements, but commented that she was not in favor of some
of the rezoning possibilities discussed.
Mr. Reichler gave his support for a structured grant program for
new businesses.
5. ADJOURNMENT.
Chair Paul moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:10pm. Mr. Elmore
seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
9,,a
Brea Paul, Chair
Attest
Page 11 of 11
I