Loading...
10-17-17 CDB Minutes v L;.1Ajr J'n St1 7-5 Vialift, 0111 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD October 17, 2017 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 6:00pm. All members were present. Also present were Planner Derek Reeves, Planner Brian Broedell, Board Secretary Grace Mackey and Mr.John Wallace representing the firm Lewis, Longman and Walker. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of the July 18th, 2017 Regular Meeting of the Community Development Board Ms. Lanier motioned to approve the minutes as written. Mr. Elmore seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. 3. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. 4. NEW BUSINESS A. ZVAR17-0004 PUBLIC HEARING (Nathan Howell) Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to decrease the minimum parking dimensions of nine feet by eighteen feet as required by Section 24-161(g)(1) to nine feet by thirteen feet in order to install a fence in the front yard at Ocean Grove Unit One on the North 54.15 feet of Lot 2, Block 6 (aka 46 Coral Street). Staff Report Planner Broedell explained that this variance is a request to reduce the minimum parking dimensions requirement. The property has an attached townhome and it is the front unit. The zoning is residential general multi- Page 1 of 8 family and future land use designation is residential low density. The proposed plan is to install a 4 foot fence in the front yard. Because the use is residential, 2 parking spaces are required and each one needs to be 9 feet wide by 18 feet deep. This request would result in an area for both parking spaces 19 feet wide by 13 feet deep. Due to the reduction in the depth of the parking, any cars parked there would stick out into the right of way. 10 feet of concrete driveway exists between the property line and edge of street pavement. No side walk currently exists in this area. Another consideration is that in the code it states that "except smaller dimensions may be provided for single family residential lots", it's far more than the 5% administrative variance that Planner Reeves could approve. Mr. Stratton requested further explanation of these facts while addressing them on the overhead screen. There was discussion of the length of vehicles, green space, etc. Applicant Comment Nathan Howell introduced himself as the owner of 46 Coral Street. He explained that if the fence were to be built he could park 3 cars and they would go into the right of way but not into the street. He has 2 dogs and said that this would help with the dogs and any children in the future. Chair Paul asked if he would be leaving the concrete that is already there once the fence is installed and the owner said yes. Public Comment Chair Paul opened the floor to public comment. With no speakers, public comment was closed by Chair Paul. Board Discussion Ms. Lanier inquired whether the city has plans for sidewalks in this area. Planner Reeves said there were no plans for sidewalks for this street at this time. Ms. Lanier asked if there is another way to get to the grassy area without going onto the wood deck. There was discussion as to whether there were any other fence design options. After several suggestions Planner Reeves explained that all of these suggestions would still be in need of a variance for one of the parking spaces. The board continued discussing changing the pass through thereby only affecting one of the parking spots and the common occurrence of parking in the right of way in Atlantic Beach. Ms. Lanier asked what was concluded in regards to changing the pass through. It was clarified that the fence could now run along the deck and jut out to create a pass through of 42 inch by 42 inch. Page 2 of 8 Motion Ms. Lanier made a motion that the board approve ZVAR17-0004 with stipulation that from east to west the fence tracks the wooden deck with the exception of a 42 inch by 42 inch access between the wooden deck and the grassy area to the east. Mr. Elmore seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. B. ZVAR17-0005 PUBLIC HEARING (Kayla Sim) Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64,for relief from the Section 24-88(b)requirement for adjoining townhouse dwelling units to be constructed of substantially the same architectural style, colors, and materials and for relief from the Section 24-88(c) requirement for adjoining townhouse dwelling units to be constructed at substantially the same time or in a continuous sequence to allow the addition of an open porch in the rear at Aquatic Gardens, Lot 17-D (aka 720 Aquatic Drive). Staff Report Planner Broedell explained that Agenda Item 4.B is a 2 part variance, and 24-88(c) which are part of the request for relief from Section 24-88(b) townhome construction and design requirements. 720 Aquatic is the southernmost unit of a 4 unit townhome building in Aquatic Gardens. The property is zoned RGM (residential general multi-family) and the future land use is residential high density. The proposed plan is to construct an open porch in the rear of the townhome. A picture from the applicant shows where posts already exist so they would be putting a composite aluminum roof over those posts. There are existing concrete pavers and some are placed over an existing concrete slab. The proposed porch would only extend over the concrete slab with the pavers on it. One part of the need for a variance would be because the proposed aluminum roof would result in a different architectural style as well as different materials from the adjoining townhomes for this unit. Also, the construction of this porch is considered an addition and an expansion of the existing building footprint which according to Section 24-88(c) adjoining townhome dwelling units are required to be constructed in a continuance sequence unless the existing structure is being renovated within the same building footprint. It was noted that this porch, if installed, would meet the setback requirements for the RGM zoning district. Page 3 of 8 Mr. Elmore asked if they were adding any other impervious surface and if so,was it under the 50%. Planner Reeves explained that he hasn't checked the impervious surface but because they are covering existing concrete it wouldn't need to be checked. Ms. Simmons asked what impact the porch roof would have on the neighbor immediately to the north. Planner Broedell showed on the screen how it wouldn't affect any of the neighbors. Applicant Comment Kayla Sim introduced herself as the owner of 720 Aquatic Drive. Ronnie Runyen introduced himself as the general contractor who is assisting the homeowner with the plan for this variance. Chair Paul asked whether there was a roof when the homeowner bought the home and the homeowner acknowledged that there was and it had a leak so it was taken down. Mr. Stratton asked if a variance is needed to replace an existing roof. Planner Reeves explained that it was a nonconforming structure in the past and because they removed it, then you can't go back with it without approval. The City Attorney acknowledged that this was correct. The use of different roofing materials was brought up again. Mr. Runyen explained that the fascia part of the aluminum roof would be the same color as the fascia on the building itself and the roof slope will not be steep so there will not be much visibility of the top of the roof. He went on to say that it is in the back yard and there is a fence. Mr. Reichler questioned why they were using aluminum instead of shingles. The contractor explained that it was for durability and cost. There was further discussion in regards to the materials and the roof pitch. Public Comment Chair Paul opened the floor to public comment. With no speakers, public comment was closed by Chair Paul. Board Discussion The board discussed the fact that when the homeowner bought the property it had a roof on the porch and replacing that roof seems very reasonable. Motion Mr. Stratton made a motion that the board approve ZVAR17-0005 for the reason stated in paragraph #4: onerous effect of regulations enacted after plotting. Ms. Lanier seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Page 4 of 8 C. ZVAR17-0007 PUBLIC HEARING (Zachary Crabtree) Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to decrease the side yard setback from 10 feet as required by Section III of the Selva Marina Unit 12-C PUD to 5 feet and decrease the rear yard setback from 20 feet as required by Section III of the Selva Marina Unit 12-C PUD to 7 feet, 10 inches to allow a screen enclosure at Selva Marina Unit 12-C Lot 4 (aka 1865 Live Oak Lane). Staff Report Planner Reeves explained that this variance is a request for a screen enclosure at 1865 Live Oak Lane in the Selva Marina neighborhood. This is a planned unit development (PUD) zoning district, Selva Marina Unit 12-C with a residential future land use. Planner Reeves pointed out the neighborhood on the overhead showing the neighborhood and property. The proposed plan is to construct a screen enclosure over a previously permitted pool and outdoor kitchen that will be 7 feet 10 inches from the rear property line and 5 feet from the side property line. The rendering of the proposed enclosure was shown on the overhead. Section 3(d) of the PUD text states that "no dwelling, fence, walls, detached out buildings, enclosed swimming pool or similar structure shall be located, placed, altered or permitted on any lot in said subdivision outside the dwelling zone except as in hereafter provided". Planner Reeves explained while referencing the overhead diagram what was the dwelling zone (buildable area on lot defined by setbacks), those setbacks being 20 feet in the front and rear and the sides being 10 feet on both sides. Enclosed swimming pools (screen enclosures) do not have additional regulations permitting them to be outside of that dwelling zone. The variance request is to allow the screen enclosure to be outside of that dwelling zone. Planner Reeves explained that there are 11 or 12 PUD's that make up the blue area that he referenced on the overhead. All of them are pretty much in the same situation as far as being approved in the late 70's and platted early 80's. This was around the same time that the city did a massive code update in 1982 where, in order to keep these as PUD's, George Bull the developer provided the covenants and restrictions as the governing text for each of these PUD's. It is specifically stated in the covenants that the city is to enforce these regulations within the area but that has not always been recognized by the city. Typically cities do not enforce covenants and restrictions, those are private restrictions that the HOA or individual owners are responsible for enforcing, not the cities. Because the city wasn't always enforcing them it has resulted in a lot of mismatch of construction in places where they would have applied the cities standard zoning whether an addition, screen enclosure, etc. In the city zoning code is Section 24-151(b)(1)(I) and that allows screen enclosures to be 5 feet Page 5 of 8 from side property lines. So if applied in this instance they are within those requirements and would have been approved administratively. But because we have to enforce these PUD regulations, that is why we are here today, to allow it to be outside the dwelling zone as defined earlier. Planner Reeves gave further clarification regarding PUD's as the board had several questions. There was discussion of the screen enclosures height and whether it is attached or detached. The screen enclosure height can be a maximum of 15' because it is listed as an accessory structure. Applicant Comment Charles Brown introduced himself as an attorney representing the applicant. He explained his involvement with this topic and the fact that most of these covenants and restrictions from the 70's and 80's have been expired by operation of law. There's a statute called the Marketable Record Title Act, Chapter 712 Florida Statutes. It's not invoked very often. It was created back in the 60's and it was used for a portion of 10-15 years to eliminate old restrictions. The way it works is when you look at a deed or snapshot in time, you go back in time 30 years and see if there are any covenants and restrictions or restrictions as to use (voluntary, not governmental) by a developer or builder. If there are no restrictions recorded at that time, you're free and clear of it. If you don't have the association still operating and if you don't make certain notices under that statute, those covenants automatically expire and are null and void as a matter of law by the statute. If you don't catch them (the association) within a 30 year time, they have to be revived by 51% of all the affected owners or they're still not impacted. Many of these old covenants are contrary to current zoning code. We would not be here other than the road block of these old, ancient covenants. He said the applicant is being impacted by covenants that are expired. Chair Paul asked at what point Mr. Brown believes the covenants expired. He noted that they were notarized on March 28, 1980 and would have expired after 30 years. There was lengthy discussion in regards to this new information. The Board asked Staff whether the city was aware of this and what the city attorney thought. Planner Reeves did point out that a PUD is public record whereas covenants and restrictions are private. The city attorney wasn't able to comment whether it applied to a PUD. Kerry Varkonda introduced himself as the owner of 1865 Live Oak Lane. Mr. Varkonda explained that he had met with the city and asked what did he need to do to get this done and he was told he would need a variance. So he decided to split the 2 things (the pool and the screen enclosure) because he wanted to do something with his back yard and if he can't get Page 6 of 8 the screen enclosure, he'll live with it. That is why he went ahead with the pool. When Mr. Varkonda discovered the problem with the PUD he went and met with Mr. George Bull, Jr. to talk about it. Mr. Bull said there was a group of 3 members that used to meet to resolve these situations but this organization was dissolved in 2011. The LLC that was in place to enforce this is no longer in existence. He offered to and did write a letter to Planner Reeves explaining all of this. Public Comment Mrs. Paul opened the floor to public comment. With no speakers, public comment was closed by Chair Paul. Board Discussion The city attorney did explain that there has been discussion of getting rid of all these PUD's and adopting one comprehensive overlay but that is in the early stages of development. The Board clarified that if they give the variance it stands alone and it's not setting precedence. The Board discussed whether or not the property would be considered to be in an "exceptional circumstance" because of the adoption of the PUD as described in this section. Chair Paul brought up the point that she would have a hard time enforcing something (the PUD) that hasn't been enforced to date. Mr. Stratton asked Planner Reeves if this structure that is being proposed were to be proposed for 8th Street or 9th Street, would it require a variance. Planner Reeves said no. Motion Mr. Elmore made a motion to defer ZVAR17-0007 with a request for additional information and clarification on these PUDs in general and the potential impact of the Marketable Record Title Act. Mr. Recihler seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. D. UBEX17-0003 PUBLIC HEARING (Eric Luman) Request for a use-by-exception as permitted by Section 24- 111(c)(3), to allow on-premises consumption of alcoholic beverages in accordance with Chapter 3 of the code at 1237 Mayport Road. Chair Paul announced that the application had been withdrawn. Planner Reeves explained that a use-by-exception was no longer needed for the proposed use after the City Commission passed the ordinance creating the Mayport Business Overlay District. Page 7 of 8 5. REPORTS A. Administrative Variances Approved No Administrative Variances have been approved since the last Community Development Board Meeting. B. Automotive Service Station Moratorium Update Planner Reeves explained that there was some information in the agenda packet for the board to look at in regards to how to fix the issue of gas stations, service stations, automotive repair, etc. All the subjects that fall under the moratorium that was passed a little over a year ago and recently extended so we can address this. Moving forward, this will be an ordinance with revised text to the Land Development Regulations and Staff will come before you with a recommendation with a public hearing and then move forward to Commission for their public hearings and votes. The first step we're looking at taking is a public outreach component including some type of public hearing in early to mid-November. The meeting will help us gather some public input to help direct us in our language before we bring it to the Board. Planner Reeves asked if the Board would be open to a meeting with the commission. The Board agreed to meet with the City Commissioners with the condition that there is an agenda and some direction. 6. ADJOURNMENT Chair Paul moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:17 p.m. Mr. Elmore seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Brea Paul, Chair Attest Page 8 of 8