08.21.2018 CDB Agenda Packet
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday / August 21, 2018 / 6:00 PM
Commission Chambers / 800 Seminole Road
1. Call to Order and Roll Call.
2. Approval of Minutes.
A. Minutes of the July 17, 2018 regular meeting of the Community Development Board.
3. Old Business.
4. New Business.
A. Ord No. 90-18-235 PUBLIC HEARING
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, COUNTY OF DUVAL, STATE OF FLORIDA,
CHANGING THE ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION OF THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT
A FROM PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) TO RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY (RS-1);
PROVIDING FOR FINDINGS OF FACT; PROVIDING FOR A SAVINGS CLAUSE; REQUIRING
RECORDING; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
5. Reports.
A. Selva PUDs Workshop
6. Public Comment.
7. Adjournment.
All information related to the item(s) included in this agenda is available for review online at www.coab.us and at the City of Atlantic
Beach Community Development Department, located at 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233. Interested parties m a y a t t e n d
the meeting and make comments regarding agenda items, or comments may be mailed to the address above. Any
person wishing to speak to the Community Development Board on any matter at this meeting should submit a Comment Card located at the
entrance to Commission Chambers prior to the start of the meeting. Please note that all meetings are live streamed and videotaped. The video is
available at www.coab.us.
If any person decides to appeal any decision made by the Community Development Board with respect to any matter considered at any
meeting may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, including the testimony and evidence upon which any appeal
is to be based.
In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 286.26 of the Florida Statutes, persons with disabilities needing
special accommodations to participate in this meeting should contact the City not less than three (3) days prior to the date of this meeting
at the address or phone number above.
the topic.
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
July 17, 2018
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chair Lanier. Ms. Simmons, Mr.
Mr. Hansen motioned to approve the minutes. Mr. Tingen seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
Chair Lanier brought up a conversation that she had with Ms. Durden regarding
the appeals process that can take place when an applicant isn't satisfied with the
decision that the Community Development Board has made in. At the last
meeting, Ms. Durden had suggested that if an appeal was coming before the City
Commission then a Community Development Board member should attend that
meeting to explain how and why the decision by the Board was made. The City
Commission does get a transcript of the CD Board meeting and they do have an
opportunity to read that and understand the Boards decision. Chair Lanier said she
thinks that having just one person from the Board to represent all would not add
value to that meeting since that person would come from their own posture on
Elmore, Mr. Hansen, Mr. Major, Ms. Paul, and alternate, Mr. Tingen, who sat in the
vacant seat, were all present. Also present were Director Shane Corbin, Planner
Derek Reeves and Planner Brian Broedell. Board Secretary Valerie Jones was
absent. City Attorney, Brenna Durden arrived at 6:20 p.m.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Minutes of the June 19, 2018 Regular Meeting of the Community
Development Board.
3. OLD BUSINESS
Ms. Durden said the issue is whether it is appropriate for one member of the CD
Board to seek to try to explain the entire Boards rationale for its decision. She said
that the Board Order and the live streaming video can be referenced. Ms. Durden
said that an appeal is coming up and she told the appellant that they can pay to
have the video transcribed if they would like to provide that to the Commission.
She said that it could create a due process by having one member of the CD Board
represent the whole Board and the decision that was made.
4. NEW BUSINESS
A. ZVAR18‐0013 PUBLIC HEARING (Ellen Wheeler)
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24‐64, to increase the
maximum fence height allowed in required side yards from 6 feet as
Page 1 of 8
Applicant Comment
required by Section 24‐157(b)(1) to 8 feet to allow for an 8 foot fence along
the western lot line at Lot 41 and the west half of Lot 39 block 13
Subdivision "A" Atlantic Beach (aka 388 11th Street).
Staff Report
Planner Reeves introduced the item and showed a map of this property. He said
that the pictures shows a vacant lot but a new home is being constructed at this
time. The proposed plan is to construct the 8 foot fence and stop about 30 feet
from the front property line which will stay in line with the neighbor's fence. The
need for a variance comes from Section 24‐157(b)(1) which states that the
maximum height of any fence will be 6 feet. The applicant is requesting the
Elmore asked from which side of the fence does Staff measure from. Planner
Reeves said that the fence is measured from grade. He said that the code has been
interpreted that you can't have a fence on top of a retaining wall exceeding the 4
foot maximum of a retaining wall. So if you want a 6 foot fence it has to be in grade
of the high side, there is no separation or definition on how it is perceived from
neighboring property. Chair Lanier asked if there was a variance in 2015 for this
and Planner Reeves said it didn't need one. There was further discussion and
explanation that the fence gets measured from wherever the posts are in the dirt.
Mr. Major asked why there is a difference in the grade and Planner Reeves said
there is a small dune line and the property was excavated down at some point.
Ellen Wheeler of 25045 Marsh Landing Parkway, Ponte Vedra Beach, introduced
herself as the Landscape Architect representing the owner. She said that the
variance due to the neighbor's retaining wall and wood fence that they are trying
to screen out.
Mr. Elmore asked if the retaining was rebuilt in 2015 and Planner Reeves
confirmed. He said that essentially they were allowed to build an 8 foot fence by
reconstructing the wall. Planner Reeves said that he thought there was a fence
there before the retaining wall with the original house on that property. Mr.
owner, Greg Cohen, lives in Daytona. She said that the retaining wall created a 2
foot drop which makes it 8 foot from grade and thereby a topographic anomaly.
Ms. Wheeler said that the owner just wants to match the fence which goes onto
the neighbor's property. She explained the situation further and some details of
what the owner would like to do. Mr. Tingen said that he had exparte with Ms.
Wheeler. There was discussion of some of the accommodations that the owner is
making in regards to drainage.
Mr. Major asked Staff if the fence on the neighboring property was in compliance.
Planner Reeves said that it was. Ms. Simmons had asked what the setback on the
side yard was and Planner Reeves said it was 7 and a half feet.
Public Comment
Chair Lanier opened the floor to public comment. There was no public comment.
Page 2 of 8
Board Discussion
Mr. Tingen said that the property was an oddity and the only counterbalance
would be to run an equal line to the neighbor's fence.
Motion
Mr. Hansen motioned to approve ZVAR18‐0013 finding that the exceptional
topographic conditions warrant approval. Ms. Simmons seconded the motion. The
motion carried unanimously.
B. ZVAR18
the corner of 20th Street and Seminole, in the Selva Marina Gardens PUD. There
was a screen room was approved in 2009, located at the back of the house and it
was 12 feet from the rear property line. It has been demolished in preparation for
a new sun room which would be 14.8 feet from the rear property line. Planner
Broedell said that the difference from the screen room to the sun room is that it
will have solid walls and a solid roof. The need for a variance comes from Section
III of the Selva Marina PUD which requires a 20 foot rear setback. He said the Board
could consider that the applicant is reducing the footprint by shortening the depth
of the room by 2.8 feet.
Mr. Elmore asked if the addition in 2009 was permitted and Planner Broedell said
it was. He expressed his frustration with past decisions made by this department
in which the LDR were not adhered to. Planner Broedell said that at the time it
was approved by the Building Department and didn't have a Zoning Department
‐0011 PUBLIC HEARING (John and Nancy Lammie)
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24‐64, to decrease the
required rear yard setback from 20 feet as required by Section III of the
Selva Marina PUD to 14.8 feet at the west 35 feet of Lot 20 and the east 21
feet of Lot 21 Selva Marina Garden (aka 310 20th Street).
Staff Report
Planner Broedell explained that the property is located at 310 20th Street, near
approval based on the records. He added that according to this PUD it does say
that screen enclosures are allowed in the rear yard with the Special Advisory
Board's approval and this may have added to the decision. Chair Lanier asked if
the Special Advisory Board was operating in 2009 and Planner Broedell said it was
not. Mr. Major asked Planner Broedell to clarify that the setback would normally
be 20 feet and Planner Broedell said that is correct. He wanted to know where this
setback came from and Mr. Elmore said it is standard for rear yards in Atlantic
Beach. Ms. Simmons said it was for the consideration of your neighbor. Director
Corbin said that setbacks were for that purpose as well as safety and access
between buildings.
Applicant Comment
John Lammie of 4217 Huntsfield Road, Fayetteville, North Carolina introduced
himself as the owner. Mr. Lammie explained how some family events brought
Page 3 of 8
about moving to Atlantic Beach. He gave some of the permitting history and the
plans that he has for the home.
Mr. Tingen said that he had exparte with the applicant. He asked Mr. Lammie if he
or his contractor knew about the statute before the screen room was torn down
and Mr. Lammie said he did not and didn't think his contractor knew. Mr. Lammie
added that he informally spoke to neighbors and have their approval. Mr. Tingen
asked if the applicant would be cutting back the pad and Mr. Lammie said he was.
Mr. Major asked the applicant if he could elaborate how he believes there has
been an onerous effect of the regulations applied in this situation. Mr. Lammie
Chair Lanier opened the floor to public comment.
Shawn Griffith of 13167 St. John Bluff, Jacksonville introduced himself as the
contractor (Pillar Construction). He said that the rear elevation and aesthetics will
be greatly improved.
Mr. Tingen commended the applicant for the improvements he is making. Mr.
Hansen said he understands that he is improving the egregious setback yet it is
still not in compliance. The setback is still being violated. Mr. Elmore agreed that
this would be setting precedence but his default will be that it's the City's error by
permitting it in 2009. He said he will support it.
Mr. Hansen motioned to approve ZVAR18‐0001 finding the onerous effect of
regulation warrant approval. Mr. Elmore seconded the motion. The motion passed
said he couldn't say that it's an onerous imposition.
Public Comment
Chris Casey of 320 20th Street introduced himself as a neighbor. He is in favor of
approval.
Board Discussion
Motion
6‐1 with Mr. Major as the dissenting vote.
C. ZVAR18‐0012 PUBLIC HEARING (Kim and Charles Pineda)
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 10‐C PUD to 9 feet and to decrease the rear yard setback from 20 feet
as required by Section III of the Selva Marina Unit 10‐C PUD to 5 fee, 4
inches to allow for a screen enclosure at Lot 26 Selva Marina Unit 10‐C PUD
(aka 1913 Selva Marina Drive).
Staff Report
Planner Broedell explained that this is a variance for a screen enclosure located in
a PUD. He said it is a single‐family home with a new pool under construction. The
proposed plan is to construct a screen enclosure over the pool. It would be 9 feet
Page 4 of 8
from the northern property line and 5 feet 4 inches from the rear property line.
The need for a variance comes from Section III(d) of this PUD which states no
enclosed swimming pool shall be located outside of the dwelling zone. The
dwelling zone is defined by the setbacks of the PUD which are 20 feet front and
rear and 10 feet for each side. Planner Broedell said that outside of these PUDs
this screen enclosure would be permitted administratively in any other residential
zoning district. This PUD contains 22 properties, approved in 1980 and the
Covenants and Restrictions are used as the governing text. Based on research they
have not always been enforced. In many cases, the Standard City Zoning for
residential districts was applied to these properties. Ms. Simmons wanted to
confirm that the 5 foot rear yard setback would be accepted if not in this PUD and
Planner Broedell said it would. Ms. Lanier confirmed with Planner Broedell that
there is no longer a governing board for the PUD.
Applicant Comment
Kimberly Pineda of 1913 Selva Marina Drive introduced herself as the owner. She
said that she was unaware of the PUD and was going by the standard City zoning.
She added that she had 2 letters from neighbors giving their approval.
Public Comment
Chair Lanier opened the floor to public comment. There was no public comment.
Board Discussion
There was no Board discussion.
Motion
Ms. Simmons moved to recommend approval of ZVAR18‐0012 finding the
surrounding conditions, exceptional circumstances and onerous effect of
regulations all warrant approval. Mr. Major seconded the motion. The motion
carried unanimously.
5. REPORTS
A. LDR Rewrite Workshop
Staff Report
Director Corbin reminded the Board of the discussion at the last meeting in
regards to the rewriting of the Land Development Regulations and said that the
team that will be doing the rewrite was present to speak to the Board. He
introduced the Northeast Florida Regional Council and Kimley‐Horn.
Mark Shelton with Kimley‐Horn Associates introduced himself. He introduced
Allison Megrath of Kimley‐Horn and Brian Teeple of Northeast Florida Regional
Council. He said that this is their second public workshop. Mr. Shelton explained
that Kimley‐Horn is a nationwide consulting and design firm. Kimley‐Horn is a one‐
profit center which means they can get resources from any offices to help out. The
team is comprised of the Northeast Florida Regional Council, the City Staff (Shane,
Page 5 of 8
give meeting dates, progress and relevant documentation.
Derek, Brian, Joe, Kevin and Brenna), the City Commission, the Community
Development Board and the Citizens.
Mr. Shelton said that the LDR is the code that creates the vision for the
community. It has to be consistent with the comprehensive plans, goals and
objective. The LDR has to be active in every project when it comes to
development. It contains specifics about zoning, subdivision regulations and other
development criteria. The other part is the zoning map which divides the City into
13 different districts. These districts differentiate between densities, open space,
landscaping, parking and more.
He explained that this is a 3 phase project: Phase 1 is the audit, and gathering
created to resolve these issues. More workshops will be held to discuss how to
handle the resolutions. Kimley‐Horn will create draft language in the form of an
ordinance. Phase 3 is the adoption where the workshops and hearings will help
them come to a final consensus on the best language to implement the new tools
for the code.
Kimley‐Horns main goal is to create user‐friendly LDRs, with graphics and tables
that are clear and don't contain too much legal verbiage. This will help people and
take away some of the dependency on Staff to explain their options. Kimley‐Horn
will include permitting tables to easily reference what can go where and why.
Mr. Shelton said this only happens with public participation from citizens, the
Boards and business owners. They want to identify the issues, understand them
and act on them. There will be a website that will be active next week that will
input. This is when we compare and contrast all of the code, charter, comp plan
and LDRs. At this time they will look for inconsistencies, outdated language and a
chance to improve the areas that always come before the Board. The audit has 4
workshops and at the end of it Kimley‐Horn will create a matrix that will identify
all of the issues that come up. It will grow and expand with the resolutions that
Kimley‐Horn will propose. Phase 2 is the assessment where concepts will be
He said that after the workshops, Kimley‐Horn will take a couple months to digest
all of the input and come back with the assessment (Phase 2) in the fall.
Mr. Shelton asked that tonight's input be focused on parts of Chapter 24 that have
not been resolved. He said that definitions, parking standards, conditional uses,
special exceptions, resource protection and the like are the things that need to be
discussed.
Board Discussion
Chair Lanier said that she thought impervious surface was going to part of this.
Mr. Teeple said it would be since it is part of Chapter 24. He explained that the
Page 6 of 8
Staff has decided to accelerate this part due to a need for a resolution to that prior
to the lengthy process of the rewrite.
Ms. Paul said that there has been a repeated issue with multi‐family structures
being constructed at the same time of similar material. She said that the Board is
receiving variance requests from owners who want to change their siding. Chair
Lanier added that it is an issue because only half of the building would change and
the rules say it has to be the same material and color. Mr. Elmore said that their
needed to be provision in the LDR for technological advances (i.e. waterproofing
around windows, building wraps, siding, etc.).
Mr. Hansen said that he sees a lot of issues with not having a defined time of grand
fathering period for any regulations that change. He would like to see a clear
definition of that. Mr. Teeple asked if there might be multiple periods depending
on which issues or just a standard period. Mr. Hansen said it could be multiple
periods depending on the situation, not a one size fits all. Mr. Teeple agreed that
the clearer the definitions then the better off everyone will be at the end of the
day. He said that there were currently multiple definitions of the same term and
some definitions that are buried in the ordinances and not in the definition
section. That will all be cleaned up.
Chair Lanier said the Board spends a lot of time on issues that were created from
a period of time when things were approved that shouldn't have been. She asked
if this can be addressed in the LDR. Mr. Teeple said that the rewrite is clear and
concise with conditions attached instead of allowing for variances then this should
minimize the amount and repetition of requests that come before the Board
because it will already be covered in the code.
Mr. Tingen brought up the parking concerns in the City. Mr. Teeple said that some
parking issues can be addressed in the LDR but others are a law enforcement issue.
Mr. Elmore said he hopes that rules will be adopted that help the City and Citizens.
Ms. Simmons she would like to see a clear explanation at the website of what the
purpose of the rewrite is for. She would like to see the Selva Marina PUDs come
into alignment with the rest of the code. Ms. Simmons would like to see a change
in having a swing set in the front yard. Lastly, she would like to see the code change
regarding dune walk overs and have them conform to the dune line and not up in
the air.
Ms. Lanier had further questions about impervious surface changes that are done
behind the scenes by homeowners. Mr. Teeple said that Staff is aware of this issue
and are working to find a solution. Mr. Elmore said that impervious surface is
intertwined with storm water management. Mr. Teeple said that the City currently
has a storm water study ongoing and maybe those 2 things can go hand in hand.
Page 7 of 8
6. ADJOURNMENT
Ms. Simmons motioned to adjourn the meeting at 7:53 p.m. Mr. Hansen seconded
the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
_______________________________________
Linda Lanier, Chair
_______________________________________
Attest
Mr. Shelton said that there is a sheet with abbreviations and acronyms for reading
the code, common planning terms to help with definitions that aren't in the code
and comment cards that can be filled out and brought back to the next meeting
or emailed.
Public Comment
Mary Ellen Waugh of 23 Coral Street introduced herself as a 34 year resident of
Atlantic Beach. Ms. Waugh thought the pervious/impervious surface question
should be part of the major plan. She asked to go on the record as suggesting that
storm water drainage be kept with pervious/impervious surface where it belongs.
Ms. Lanier suggested that she bring that to the City Commission.
Pamela White of 2069 Selva Marina Drive introduced herself as a resident since
1986. She said that she was present at the meeting on July 11th. Ms. White asked
how citizens will know about anything that is going to impact there area. Director
Corbin said the website will have all of the relevant documents on it. When the
final draft is available it will be clear as to what changes were made and what is
being proposed. Ms. Lanier said that citizens do need to be proactive and read the
website and talk to their neighbors.
Mr. Major asked when the vision of the Mayor and City Commission would be
presented. Planner Reeves said that the Commission has a workshop on July 23rd.
Page 8 of 8
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 4.A
CASE NO. Ordinance No. 90-18-235 (To be Withdrawn)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, COUNTY OF DUVAL,
STATE OF FLORIDA, CHANGING THE ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION OF
THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A FROM PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
(PUD) TO RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY (RS-1); PROVIDING FOR FINDINGS
OF FACT; PROVIDING FOR A SAVINGS CLAUSE; REQUIRING RECORDING;
AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
LOCATION SEE EXHIBIT A
APPLICANT City of Atlantic Beach
DATE August 14, 2018
STAFF Derek W. Reeves, AICP; Planner
BACKGROUND
This item is the ordinance to rezone the much discussed Selva PUDs to RS-1. It was originally published
by mail and newspaper as required by Section 24-51 of the code to hold a public hearing at the August
meeting of the Community Development Board. After notices were sent out, staff held an open house
event where residents of the effected Selva PUDs were invited to learn more about the proposal and
provide input. As a result of the input received from that meeting, staff is reconsidering the action proposed
in this ordinance. The City Commission is scheduled to discuss options at a workshop on August 20th.
At this time staff will not be moving forward with this ordinance as proposed. Staff is proposing to
workshop possible solutions to the Selva PUDs with the CDB at this August meeting where the comments
made at the open house from residents and those of the Commission at their workshop on August 20th will
be considered.
EXHIBIT A: