11.21.2017 CDB Minutes Signed JS '�
SS1
�J w
.)
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
November 21, 2017
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:01p.m. All members were present
except for Mr. Reichler and Mr. Mandelbaum. Also present were Planner
Derek Reeves, Planner Brian Broedell, Board Secretary Valerie Jones and
the City Attorney, Brenna Durden representing the firm Lewis, Longman
and Walker.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Minutes of the October 17th, 2017 Regular Meeting of the
Community Development Board
Mr. Stratton motioned to approve the minutes as written. Mr. Elmore
seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
3. OLD BUSINESS
A. 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 low future land use.
Page 1 of 8
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.
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 the dwelling zone is the 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. Planner Reeves explained that there are 11 or 12 PUD's
that make up the blue PUD area on the zoning map. The variance request
is to allow the screen enclosure to be outside of that dwelling zone.
One of the things the Board had asked for at our previous meeting was
information on the ordinance that created this PUD. Staff confirmed that
this was not passed via ordinance. PUD's came into existence in Atlantic
Beach in 1972. Through 1982 when the code was fully rewritten, PUD's
were not passed by ordinance. There was an application that was
approved by the City Commission like an ordinance would be, but not with
the full public hearing and permanent documentation. Staff did provide
the minutes from the approval in March 24, 1980 when the plat and,
covenants and restrictions were approved by the Commission. The
covenants and restrictions also call out the City's responsibility to enforce
these rules.
Planner Reeves explained that the Marketable Record Title Act, Chapter
712 of the Florida Statutes, does not apply to zoning requirements, PUD's
or other governmental regulations. It's strictly the private side of
covenants and restrictions within planned neighborhoods that have
those documents in place.
Ms. Simmons asked the City Attorney if this meant that the Board has to
uphold the old covenants and restrictions as if they are code now and
that they do require those setbacks and there is still a need for a variance.
The City Attorney confirmed that that was correct. She explained that in
years past the City did not adopt their PUD's by ordinance but by vote of
the Commission. It was declared a PUD and it was declared that the
covenants and restrictions that were approved would be recorded and
applied to the development.
Ms. Durden continued to explain rewriting of the Land Development
Code and what is needed for the future. She confirmed that the
Page 2 of 8
Marketable Record Title Act does not serve to extinguish conditions that
are set out in a deed restriction by approval of a local government.
Planner Reeves added that the intent of Staff will be to recommend that
these PUD's be addressed. There have been a mix of restrictions enforced.
He explained a couple of similar examples of this same variance request
where one met the PUD setback requirements and one did not.
Mr. Stratton asked if this request was for a home on 10th Street (for
example) there would not be a problem. Planner Reeves confirmed that
that is correct. There was further discussion by the Board as to lot size.
Applicant Comment
Kerry Varkonda introduced himself as the owner of 1865 Live Oak Lane.
He also introduced his attorney, Zachary Crabtree. Mr. Varkonda
referenced a letter from a citizen that implied he had proceeded with
installing the pool in order to put pressure on the board to get the screen
enclosure. He ensured them that that wasn't the case.
Zach Crabtree (8777 San Jose Boulevard, Building A, Suite 200,
Jacksonville, Florida 32217) introduced himself as the attorney for Mr.
Varkonda. He pointed out that reason number four would apply as
grounds for approval and so would number three. Mr. Crabtree
mentioned Planner Reeves comments regarding the mixture of
restrictions that had not been enforced in this area and that would lead
to the exceptional circumstances around this specific piece of property.
Public Comment
Mrs. Paul opened the floor to public comment. With no speakers, public
comment was closed by Chair Paul.
Board Discussion
Ms. Lanier asked that the letter from the citizen not be put in the record
due to the fact that it was not signed. Ms. Durden responded that because
this is a quasi-judicial proceeding, an unsigned letter with no opportunity
to know who it is from or to ask any questions should not be considered
in making your decision. The Board can make it part of the record.
The Board asked Planner Reeves about the differences between attached
and detached structures. Planner Reeves gave further clarification
regarding this.
Motion
Ms. Simmons made a motion to approve ZVAR17-0007 finding exceptional
circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared
Page 3 of 8
to other properties in the area. Ms. Lanier seconded the motion. The
motion carried 4 -1 with Chair Paul as the dissenting vote.
4. NEW BUSINESS
A. ZVAR17-0008 PUBLIC HEARING (Sarah "Sally" L. Young)
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to increase
the allowable fence height from 4 feet as required by Section
111(D)(4)of the Selva Marina Unit 10-B PUD to 6 feet at Selva Marina
Unit 10-B Lot 7(aka 1820 North Sherry Drive).
Staff Report
Planner Reeves explained that this variance is a request for a six foot fence
in the Selva Marina neighborhood. This is a planned unit development
(PUD) zoning district, Selva Marina Unit 10-B with a residential low future
land use.
The proposed plan is to replace an existing 6 foot wood fence with a new
6 foot wood fence but relocating the front connections of the house to the
side property lines a little further forward. Planner Reeves illustrated on
the overhead where the existing fence is located and where the proposed
fence would be located.
The Board asked whether the existing 6 foot fence was within code and
Planner Reeves explained that 4 foot height is code. Therefore the existing
6 foot fence is not within code. Front and rear setbacks are 20 feet and
sides are 10 feet. Planner Reeves explained that the applicant provided
pictures of many of the homes in the neighborhood that have 6 foot
fences. Because of an existing PUD which indicates that a maximum height
for a fence is 4 feet and that is why there is a need for a variance.
Applicant Comment
Mark Young introduced himself and his wife, Sarah Young as the owners
of 1820 Sherry Drive North. He stated that when went to get a permit he
was surprised that the fence could only be 4 foot and added that he had
lived in the Royal Palms area and had a 6 foot fence. He said he understood
the 4 foot in the front, but questioned why there can't be 6 foot fence in
the rear and side yards.
Public Comment
Chair Paul opened the floor to public comment.
Susan Beaugrand of 1830 North Sherry Drive, the next door neighbor,
stated that she in favor of the fence. She explained that everyone has 6
foot fence and that much of it is dilapidated and falling down due to the
last 2 hurricanes. She felt that this would be an improvement.
Page 4 of 8
Walter McDermott of 1817 North Sherry Drive introduced himself as the
neighbor across the street and is in favor as the 6 foot fence.
Brian Kilby introduced himself as the owner of 1825 North Sherry Drive, he
lives across the street from the Young's. He felt that 6 foot fences are very
common across the back and side of the properties in the neighborhood.
He commented that he didn't like having 6 foot fence on a portion of the
front yard as requested.
Lorraine Schmidt of 1831 Selva Marina Drive stated that she is in favor of
the 6 foot fence.
With no more speakers, Chair Paul closed public comment.
Board Discussion
Ms. Lanier said that she was happy to see young people and fresh faces
moving into these neighborhoods and improving their properties.
Motion
Ms. Lanier motioned to approve ZVAR17-0008. Mr. Elmore seconded the
motion. Mr. Stratton asked Planner Reeves if there was any part of this
variance request that would require a variance request if it wasn't part of
the PUD. Planner Reeves explained that if this were a normal regulation
the front of the house is slightly less than 20 feet from the front property
line which would mean that the fence would have to be the 1.6 feet back
from the face of the garage. There was discussion to have the homeowner
move the fence back that 1.6 feet so that it would stay within code. Ms.
Lanier amended her motion to include a stipulation that the homeowner
push back the fence on the northeast corner so that it meets current city
code. Mr. Elmore seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
B. ZVAR17-0010 PUBLIC HEARING (Lori Gaglione)
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to increase
the permitted height of fencing allowed in front yards from four feet
as required by Section 24-157(b)(1) to a height of six feet at Lot 1,
Block 3, Selva Marina Unit 2 (aka 1505 Selva Marina Drive).
Staff Report
Planner Broedell explained this is a variance to allow a 6 foot fence in the
front yard at 1505 Selva Marina Drive. The property is in the RS-L, large
lot, zoning district with a future land use of Residential Low Density. It is a
corner lot that fronts both Selva Marina Drive and Seminole Road. The city
code defines a corner lot as abutting two or more streets, explaining that
the exterior lot line of the narrowest side of the lot adjoining the street
shall be considered the front of the lot. That makes the southern property
line that abuts Seminole Road the front of this property according to code.
Page 5 of 8
The proposed plan would be to install a six foot fence to run along the
southern (front) property line before turning and running it back to the
house. The need for the variance is Section 24-157(b)(1)stating that within
required front yards the maximum of any fence shall be four foot and then
within required side or rear yards the maximum height shall be six foot.
Because of the way the city code defines the front yard for corner lots,this
six foot fence is in their required front yard.
The proposed fence along the southern property line would be over 30
feet from the pavement of Seminole Road. There are no site line issues.
There is a hedge that is on city property and the fence would be behind it.
Applicant Comment
Lori Gaglione introduced herself as the owner of 1505 Selva Marina Drive.
She explained how she was surprised that he front yard would be Seminole
Drive when her house as the driveway and front door face Selva Marina
Drive. Ms. Gaglione added that she had approached four of her neighbors
and they were all okay with the fence and if necessary, she would be happy
to get their statements.
Public Comment
Chair Paul opened the floor to public comment. With no speakers, public
comment was closed.
Board Discussion
Ms. Lanier questioned the fact that the code would designate the front
yard as Seminole Road. The Board asked for clarification of the placement
of the fence along the property line, the right of way and the concern of
setting precedence. Mr. Elmore suggested that she install a four foot fence
with hedge behind it or in front of it.
Planner Reeves explained the front yard requirement and the side yard
requirements. Mr. Stratton asked if the four foot fence could go in as
proposed with no variance and Planner Reeves confirmed that to be true.
There was lengthy discussion about the front yard determination and
Planner Reeves said this code was originally created to establish consistent
and reasonable buildable areas, but this also impacts fences.
Ms. Simmons stated she was inclined to give this variance. Ms. Lanier was
not convinced that the front yard code was not in existence when this
house was built. The Board discussed the possibility of trying to locate the
original ordinance before making a decision. Mr. Stratton brought up the
tunneling effect and his concern that the six foot fence could cause that.
Ms. Lanier disagreed that it would not apply because this piece of property
is so large. Mr. Elmore expressed his concern about setting precedence if
Page 6 of 8
they don't follow the code. Ms. Simmons asked him if he saw any place
for compromise and he suggested the four foot fence with the hedge.
Motion
Ms. Simmons motioned to approve ZVAR17-0010 finding the irregular
shape of the property warrants special consideration. Ms. Lanier seconded
the motion. Mrs. Simmons and Ms. Lanier voted for the variance; and Mr.
Elmore, Mr.Stratton and Chair Paul voted against the variance.The motion
failed with a vote of 2-3.
C. ZVAR17-0009 PUBLIC HEARING (Thomas James Belich Jr.)
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 a porch in the rear at Section "H"
the west 30 feet of Lot 3 and the east 10 feet of Lot 4 Block 65 (aka
73 W 10th Street).
Staff Report
Planner Broedell stated that this is a variance dealing with the townhouse
construction and design regulations at 73 West 10th Street. The zoning is
RG, residential two-family, and the future land use is residential medium
density. It is the western unit of a two-unit townhouse built in 1998.
Planner Broedell pointed out the 10 feet 4 inch common wall that the two
townhouses share. The proposed plan is to construct and open porch in
the rear of this townhouse.
The need for a variance is two parts from the Section 24-88(b) and Section
24-88(c), which prohibit changes in style and footprint to townhouses.
Applicant Comment
Thomas James Belich Jr. introduced himself as the property owner of 73
West 10th Street. He explained where the porch would be placed and
that it would not affect his neighbors. One of his neighbors has a similar
porch and that is where he got the idea in order to gain some shade.
Public Comment
Mrs. Paul opened the floor to public comment.
Melissa Dunfee of 71 West 10th Street introduced herself as the neighbor
of Mr. Belich. She is in favor of Mr. Belich putting up a porch.
With no more speakers, Chair Paul closed public comment.
Page 7 of 8
Board Discussion
Mr. Elmore said he was in favor of this variance. Ms. Lanier said she would
support this variance.
Motion
Mr. Elmore motioned to approve ZVAR17-0009 finding the onerous effect
of regulations after platting or after development of the property or after
construction of improvements upon the property. Mr. Stratton seconded
the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
S. REPORTS
Planner Reeves announced that the new city manager has a new policy
that the Community Development Director will not be granting
administrative variances nor will the Public Works Director. Consensus was
given to remove this section of the agenda.
6. ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Elmore motioned to adjourn the meeting at 7:56 p.m. Ms. Lanier
seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
-31W1/4)--‘
1)
Brea Paul, Chair
Attest
Page 8 of 8