Loading...
11-21-17 CDB Minutes v S`—%I' r Jiii: Sd r0 J J;31 9r 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 III(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. 5. 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. LkStn— Brea Paul, Chair Attest Page 8 of 8