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