Loading...
Community Develop Board Minutes 2-20-18Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD February 20, 2018 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. Chair Paul, Mr. Major, Mr. Hansen, Mr. Tingen and Mr. Elmore were all present. Ms. Lanier, Ms. Simmons and Mr. Mandelbaum were absent from the meeting. Also present were Director Shane Corbin, 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 January 16, 2018 Regular Meeting of the Community Development Board. Mr. Hansen requested a change to the minutes on page 5 to add his ex parte communication and correct the spelling of a name from Mr. Moore to Mr. Moyer. Mr. Hansen motioned to approve the minutes as amended. Mr. Elmore seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. 3. OLD BUSINESS A. Selection of Chair and Vice Chair Chair Paul asked the Board if they wanted to wait for the other members of the board to be present. The Board agreed to defer this to the next meeting. 4. NEW BUSINESS A. ZVAR17-0016 PUBLIC HEARING (Joseph J. Conselice) Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, for relief from the Section 24-171(fl prohibition of chain link fences within 100 feet of the commercial corridor to allow an existing chain link fence to remain on a newly developed parcel at Lots 1 and 2, except the north 10 feet, as shown on Donners Re -plat (aka 1631 Mayport Road). Staff Report Planner Reeves said that this is a request for a variance related to existing chain link fence on the property. He referred to a use -by -exception application from 2014 by American Well Irrigation who is the owner of this property. It is a corner lot with recent construction of a 2 -story building with a garage on the lower level for residential and commercial parking and living area on the second level. The property is zoned Commercial General. The construction is complete and the CO has been on hold for this variance. Page 1 of 10 Applicant Comment The variance request is to maintain the existing 6 foot chain link fence after the construction and redevelopment of this property since chain link fence is prohibited within the commercial corridors. The fence was discussed before by the Board in February 2014 related to a use -by -exception at which time the Board did recommend approval to the City Commission with a condition that the existing chain link fence be screened with existing hedges, enhanced and irrigated. The Commission approved it in May of 2014 with the condition. Planner Reeves showed a picture of the hedge in 2014 and a picture of it now, pointing out the drastic change of fullness and height with the chain link fence behind it. The property was sub -divided last summer to create a new parcel where this new building has been built. This was done because if you increase your property value through new construction, additions or redevelopment by more than 25% of existing improvements then you have to bring the whole property up to code. By sub -dividing it this was the only property impacted by those requirements. During the permit process the plans reflected the chain link fence being replaced with wood. The CO has been held up because that is part of the approved plan set has not been met. The redevelopment of the property triggers the commercial corridor standards and requires the fencing be made conforming. Mr. Major asked if the height and setback requirements were met. Planner Reeves said they were. Mr. Major wanted to know if the City has deemed wooden fence more aesthetically pleasing than chain link fence. Planner Reeves said that there wasn't necessarily a preference toward wood but there is against chain link as opposed to vinyl or another material. Mr. Major also wanted to know if the City believes hedges are more aesthetically please than all other options. Planner Reeves said that in certain parts of the code hedges are required landscaping and these hedges would count toward that requirement. Mr. Tingen wanted to know if the applicant was aware of this when the land was divided. Planner Reeves said they were and that is why they presented the site plan with the wooden fence which satisfied the requirements. Chester Kimes of 5446 Heckscher Drive in Jacksonville introduced himself as the contractor. He said that he didn't think that a 6 foot privacy fence along Mayport wouldn't be aesthetically better than what is there now. Mr. Kimes explained that the applicant has put in a lot of shrubs and irrigation at a cost of several thousand dollars. He asked that the fence be left as it is. Joe Conselice of 209 Oak Drive South in Fleming Island introduced himself as the applicant. Mr. Hansen wanted to know why he submitted plans that included a wooden fence but didn't install a wooden fence. Mr. Conselice said he thought it would look worse because the wood will deteriorate. He pointed to the picture to show that you can't really see the chain link fence due to the shrubs. He Page 2 of 10 Public Comment Board Discussion Motion referred to the previous variance and the financial investment that he has in the shrubs. Mr. Elmore asked him if he still felt the need for a fence at all. Mr. Conselice said he did for security. Mr. Elmore said he looks at this as a self-imposed hardship since Mr. Conselice knew that he needed to have a wood fence but didn't install it. He did commend Mr. Conselice on the condition of the hedge but felt that code must still be adhered to. Chair Paul opened the floor to public comment. With none, it was closed. Planner Reeves clarified that the shrubs will remain since they are still required as part of the buffer. He explained the use -by -exception in 2014 was because the fence came up as non -conforming and should it be required to be replaced at that time. It was decided that the condition of required hedging would allow them to keep the fence at that time. Mr. Hansen wondered if the code should be looked at. Mr. Major said that since the fence is already there and the hedges are beautiful that he doesn't like to tear things down that are effective. Mr. Elmore had concerns that the Board's history of giving too many use -by -exceptions has had past criticism. He believes that we need to stick to the LDR or consider a rewrite. Mr. Tingen said that he had spoken to the owner and understands that the hedges look good but felt that the applicant knew what he was supposed to do and chose not to do it which leaves him at fault. Chair Paul asked staff if they can use other fencing materials. Planner Reeves confirmed that the applicant can do anything except chain link and barb wire. The Board agreed that they need to stick to the code. Mr. Elmore motioned to deny ZVAR17-0016 finding the chain link fence has a negative impact to the aesthetic environment of the community as it is explained in the code. Mr. Hansen seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. B. ZVAR18-0001 PUBLIC HEARING (Kelly and Mike Diaz) Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to decrease the required side yard from 10 feet as required by Section 24-17 to 1.5 feet in order to increase the height of an existing nonconforming structure at the west 115 feet of Lot 6, Block 22 and the west 115 feet pf the north one-half Lot 5, Block 22, Atlantic Beach (aka 130 5th Street). Staff Report Planner Broedell explained that this is a request for a variance to enlarge an existing non -conforming structure. The existing house was built in 1932. Because it is a corner lot the front of the lot is the west side that fronts Ocean Boulevard. The proposed plan would increase the height of the house from 24 feet to 29 feet Page 3 of 10 Applicant Comment Public Comment Board Discussion due to the applicants desire to raise the existing foundation, increase ceiling height and create adequate space for duct work. Planner Broedell explained that the expansion or enlargement of a non -conforming structure is prohibited unless that expansion complies with the code or a variance is obtained. All of the setbacks are met except for the north property line. Mike and Kelly Diaz of 1490 Selva Marina Drive introduced themselves as the applicants. Ms. Diaz explained that they wanted to make the house livable without tearing it down or changing the foot print. The Diaz's have meet with 3 contractors and a house mover and was told that the house could be raised up under the second floor and a new slab poured to raise it up a foot or two from its existing 6 and a half foot ceilings. There would also be an increase in height to accommodate insulation and duct work between floors. Mr. Elmore said he wasn't sure that 5 feet is enough and the applicant agreed that 6 feet might be better which would bring the overall height to 30 feet. Mr. Tingen said that he was in the house and agreed that the ceilings were very close to his head. The applicant is aware that it will cost more to renovate than to rebuild but they are willing to preserve it as much as possible. Chair Paul opened the floor to public comment. John Bishop of 544 Ocean Boulevard introduced himself as a neighbor who has lived in the neighborhood since the 1950's. He said that the applicants are trying to preserve the integrity of the old Atlantic Beach neighborhood and he believes the Board should commend this applicant and approve the variance. Planner Reeves had several emails that he shared with the Board that spoke in favor of this variance. These emails will also apply to the next variance on the agenda. Chair Paul had also received an email in favor of this variance. There were no further public comments. Mr. Hansen said that he had ex -parte communication with Mike Diaz in December on how to get a variance. He said he also received an email from the applicant regarding the variance. Mr. Tingen also had ex -parte communication with Kelly Diaz. Mr. Elmore said he knew the applicants and applauds what they are doing to preserve the history and integrity of this house. He reiterated the need for the 6 feet as to avoid any future problems. Mr. Hansen said it was an easy vote due to keeping the footprint and saving the architecture. Chair Paul was grateful to see an old house being saved knowing that the applicant could easily have torn it down with less time and effort. Page 4 of 10 Motion Mr. Hansen motioned to approve ZVAR18-0001 finding the onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property. Chair Paul asked if the Board wanted to increase the height to 30 feet. Ms. Durden suggested that they include the height. Mr. Hansen amended the motion to condition that the height be below 35 feet. Mr. Elmore seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. C. ZVAR18-0002 PUBLIC HEARING (Kelly and Mike Diaz) Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to decrease the required rear yard for detached garages from 10 feet as required by Section 24-151(b)(1)(e) to 7 feet to allow for the construction of a two story detached garage with guest quarters at the west 115 feet of Lot 6, Block 22 and the west 115 feet pf the north one-half Lot 5, Block 22, Atlantic Beach (aka 130 5th Street). Staff Report Applicant Comment Public Comment Board Discussion Planner Broedell explained that this variance is for the same address as the previous variance and the applicants are seeking relief from the rear yard setback for detached garages. The existing garage is 3.8 feet from the rear lot line. The proposed plan is to demolish the existing one-story garage and build a two-story detached garage with guest quarters on the second floor. The new garage would be 9 feet from the rear lot line. Originally it was 7 feet but the applicants reworked the plan and reduced it to 9 feet. The proposed garage would be 598.5 square feet in lot area, 25 feet in height and 5 feet from existing house. The need for a variance comes from the code requiring detached garages under 600 square feet of lot area and 25 feet or less in height to be a minimum of 10 feet from rear lot line. Consider that they are proposing a 9 foot setback. The height would go from 12 feet to 25 feet and the lot area from 375 square feet to just under 600 square feet. Ms. Diaz introduced herself as the owner of the property and explained that the garage is in major disrepair. They reworked the plan to keep the garage 5 feet from the house and still have a two car garage. Chair Paul opened the floor to public comment. With none, it was closed. Mr. Hansen said that he didn't have a problem with this variance since the setback would go from 3.8 feet to 9 feet resulting in an improvement. Mr. Elmore agreed. Planner Reeves explained that the request is for a 7 foot setback and the applicant has since offered to do a 9 foot setback so the Board would need to clarify this in their motion. Mr. Hansen said he could go with either one. Mr. Elmore didn't have a problem with the 7 feet since it is still a gain. Page 5 of 10 Motion Mr. Major had a hard time with this variance due to the previous applicant who had to comply with fencing. Mr. Major thought they were working with a blank slate, but Chair Paul explained that there is an existing garage there and they are just seeking to build a different garage which will be even closer to compliance. She pointed out that the previous applicant and an empty lot to work with. Mr. Hansen said he could agree with Mr. Major if there wasn't already a garage there that is in violation of current code. Mr. Major said the applicant could build a single story and have the 5 foot setback. Mr. Tingen added that the garage was also built in 1932 and was about to fall apart. He asked whether there is a problem with trying to get more space that is conducive to cars of today. Chair Paul felt the number of vehicles has become an issue more than the size. Mr. Major said that if it was a single -story two car garage then it would fit the code. Mr. Elmore motioned to approve ZVAR18-0002 finding the onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after construction of improvements upon the property. Mr. Hansen seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Tingen asked if the Board was changing it from 7 feet to 9 feet and Chair Paul said that they were granting the original variance request for 7 feet. D. Ordinance 90-18-231 PUBLIC HEARING AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, AMENDING CHAPTER 24, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ARTICLE III, DIVISION 2, SECTION 24-51, NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS; DELETING CURRENT SECTION 24-51 IN ITS ENTIRETY; ADOPTING NEW SECTION 24-51, PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REQUIRED NOTICES, ESTABLISHING NEW NOTICE, ADVERTISEMENT AND SIGNAGE REQUIREMENTS; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Staff Report Planner Reeves explained that this is a continuation of the conversation the Board had at the last meeting for potential changes to notice requirements. The Board asked Staff to come back with revised language that would incorporate Staff's recommendations and allow for more discussion. Planner Reeves said that the previous proposal mirrored what the State had for newspaper notification which was 7 days and he has changed all of those to 10 days to keep it consistent with current code. Staff did incorporate the additional changes that Staff had recommended which is the mail and signs for small scale comp plan ordinances. Those are site specific requests for change to future land use designation and a small text plan to go with Page 6 of 10 it. Because those are site specific it is easy to do mail notices and post signs as you would for rezoning. That is above and beyond what the State requires. The same thing was done for rezoning that is applicant based. Planner Reeves pointed out that the City exceeds State requirements in almost every category. Mr. Elmore wanted to know why there wouldn't be any mail or sign notifications on Zoning Map changes for over 10 acres. Planner Reeves said that the over 10 acres is only for city initiated changes. He said that the only time you might see a Zoning Map change over 10 acres would be when the City is changing the terminology for the district. An example would be if RS -1 was changed to another name. Chair Paul agreed with Mr. Elmore that an extra layer of oversite would be good. Mr. Elmore said he would like to see the Zoning Map over 10 acres match the under 10 acres for mailing notices 30 days in advance. Planner Reeves then showed comparisons of noticing requirements for other jurisdictions. He pointed out how the City exceeds every other jurisdiction in almost every category. He went into the cost analysis of noticing giving examples of newspaper, mailing and signage costs. He compared a smaller notice to a city wide notice and included the cost of staff time. A city wide notice with signs would take 16 weeks for one person to put all of the signs up and would total approximately $28,000 with 728 hours of staff time for mailers. Planner Reeves discussed some of the things that could be added to what has been proposed. In the last meeting the Board discussed having an official notification section on the City website and email notification. The City Manager is discouraging email notification at this time due to the fact that we only have about 1,700 emails at this time and there are over 5,700 property owners which leaves us a long way from being able to properly notify all of them. These emails are also not currently attached to an address. He asked Ms. Durden if the email addresses would be public record. She acknowledged that they would be. Mr. Elmore wanted to know why the City would be obligated to give the emails to commercial entities. Ms. Durden said that the law prohibits any kind of vetting and it would subject the City to law suits. The City is limited as to what they can ask when public records are requested. She said that it would be something to aspire to but not necessarily make mandatory for noticing. Planner Reeves went on to talk about additional signage and how the current code, in certain situations, would require a sign on every single parcel. He would like to move away from that with the new ordinance and reach some middle ground. He said the City could do message boards (marquee style). Another option was street corners or major intersections but there has been a fair amount of objection to this due to the potential safety hazard and distraction to drivers. Page 7 of 10 Public Comment Board Discussion He said that Staff is looking for a recommendation from the Board to the City Commission to either approve it as written, ask Staff to make certain changes or the Board can deny it. Mr. Major wanted to know how the residents of Atlantic Beach would be notified of this change. Ms. Durden explained that there will be two readings at the City Commission level and they will be advertised. She said that a Section 5 will be added to the existing ordinance to waive the current provisions of 24-51 in order to adopt this. Chair Paul opened the floor to public comment. Susanne Barker of 1938 Beachside Court expressed her concern about these changes. She explained that there were a lot of signs put out for the Mayport Business District Overlay but in her 22 years of living in Atlantic Beach she has never seen this done and believes Staff is using this unusual situation to imply this is going to cost the City a lot of time and money. She is concerned that there will only be one City Commission meeting instead of two in many of the noticing situations. Ms. Barker had looked into Fernandina Beach and said they find newspaper noticing onerous and they use signs and post cards instead of a letter to keep the cost down. She said she has never seen city wide signage or notification in all her years of living here. Ms. Barker would like to see a report of past expenses for noticing and does not believe it will be anywhere near what Staff is presenting. She likes the idea of social media and would like to see an app created for the City. Ms. Barker read a letter from Maria Mark of 1148 Linkside Drive. Ms. Mark is concerned that Staff is trying to streamline the process due to Staff time and expense. She compared it to streamlining the tree removal process where trees were illegally removed and no mitigation fees were paid. Ms. Mark said that public opinion is being squashed and zoning approvals are being pushed through without public input. She asked that the Board protect the public's right to the government process. With no further public comments, Chair Paul brought it back to the Board for discussion. Mr. Major said that he will not vote for recommendation to change the ordinance unless the app is created. He liked the idea of the website and the app. Mr. Elmore said that people call it streamlining as if government is trying to get out of their job but he looks at it as an attempt to be more efficient and not necessarily trying to limit the public to information. He spoke of how Commission meetings are done and how a second reading rarely has any public comment. Mr. Elmore said that if people really want to know what's going on in their community that there are plenty of ways to do that. Chair Paul said she also has sat through a lot of second readings. Her experience was that a lot of questions are asked and answered on the first reading but not on Page 8 of 10 Motion 5. REPORTS the second. She agreed with Mr. Elmore that if the public really wants to know what's going on they would know that the proposed noticing requirements exceed the State requirements and a variety of the cities around Atlantic Beach. She would like to see the notices put on the City website and if an app can be developed that would be great but it's not a deal breaker for her. Ms. Durden clarified that any ordinance will still require two readings before the governing body. So in addition to the public hearing before this Board you will have a minimum of two reading and one public hearing before the City Commission. She said that even without a public hearing there is always an opportunity for the public to comment on the ordinance whether it's on the first reading or second reading. Certain scenarios require this Board to have a public hearing and the City Commission to have two public hearings. It really depends on the specific request and who is making the request. Planner Reeves added that Staff is exceeding the State by requiring public hearings for all of these noticing situations in front of this Board as well. He also said that if the Board wanted to add a second hearing that could be done. Mr. Elmore motioned to adopt Ordinance 90-18-231 with the addition of the 30 day notice given by mail for zoning map changes greater than 10 acres and the inclusion of a waiver from Section 24-51. Mr. Tingen seconded the motion. Mr. Major asked if the Board was adding in the recommendation to add the website, emails and new technology. Mr. Elmore said yes, he would like to include the development of the website, gathering of emails and the app. Mr. Hansen said he wasn't sure if that should be added but just general direction. Mr. Major said it should be a tool that is used just like mail and signs. Chair Paul said she would feel more confident if all of the technology was developed and functioning but they would be hinging this on something that hasn't come to fruition yet. Mr. Elmore confirmed that his original motion stands. The motion passed unanimously. Planner Reeves introduced Shane Corbin as the new Community Development Director. Director Corbin said that he is a transplant from Savannah, Georgia where was the Zoning Administrator for the couple of years. He mentioned that Savannah just went through a similar situation where they changed their approach to noticing. Director Corbin said he was previously from Louisville, Kentucky for 26 years where he worked in several different positions. He said he is happy to be in Atlantic Beach and looks forward to working with the Board. Planner Reeves gave the Board an update on the Medical Marijuana Ordinance. He said that Staff had presented the map that the Board had recommended along with some code language at a Town Hall meeting in January. Staff will take the input from the meeting and continue working on the ordinance. The deadline is May 28th so Staff will bring it back to the Board in the next couple months. Page 9 of 10 He also gave an update on the Automotive Service Station moratorium. The moratorium went to the Town Hall meeting in January. They are looking at a ban of gas stations in the future. The deadline is June 22nd and Staff will bring something back to the Board in the next couple months. Ms. Durden added that Staff has received direction on the ban of the gas stations in the future. Florida law does authorize and allow for complete bans but there does need to be reasonable and rational basis for the ban and those have to be stated. That will take a little bit of time to develop. She said that those gas stations that are in existence will need provisions to allow for remodeling, restoration and updating so the City is not in a position of putting them out of business. She said that this takes a little more time and they need to make sure that property rights are being paid attention to. Ms. Durden encouraged the Board to let her or Staff know if they have any recommendations, concerns or questions. Mr. Elmore asked if Staff did a courtesy review of the RaceTrak Gas Station that is going in on the corner of Dutton Island and Mayport Road. Planner Reeves said he did not but concerns had come up at the Town Hall and with Commission. A few residents expressed concerns. Ms. Durden said the City Manager and Commission said they would like to see the two cities work together to develop an overlay zone that would include the entire corridor so that we won't run into the issues of whether it's in the City of Atlantic Beach or Jacksonville. Planner Reeves spoke about the Design Charrette for Mayport Road between Plaza and Levy. It is scheduled for March 7th at 6:00 p.m. in the chambers for the public to give input and the Board is invited as well. Ms. Durden said that the appeal regarding 1605 Selva Marina Drive for a variance to allow 6 foot fence in front yard instead of a 4 foot fence will be held in chambers on Monday, February 26th at 4:30 p.m. 6. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Hansen motioned to adjourn the meeting at 8:12 p.m. Mr. Tingen seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Page 10 of 10