Loading...
01-15-19 CDB MinutesMinutes of the Regular Meeting of the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD January 15, 2019 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chair Lanier. Ms. Paul, Mr. Major, Mr. Hansen, Mr. Tingen, Mr. Elmore and Ms. Simmons were all present. Also present were Director Shane Corbin, Principal 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 December 15, 2018 Regular Meeting of the Community Development Board. Mr. Hansen motioned to approve the minutes. Mr. Tingen seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. 3. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. 4. NEW BUSINESS A. ZVAR18-0020 PUBLIC HEARING (Sheila Powers) Request fora variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to increase the maximum length allowed for a privacy screen/wall and to decrease the required side yard setbacks for privacy screen/wall from 15 feet to 0 feet. Staff Report Planner Broedell explained that this is a request to increase the maximum length allowed for a privacy screen/wall and to decrease the required side yard setback for the privacy screen/wall. The property is located at 1946 Beachside Court between 18th and 19th and is a single family home. In May of 2018, a stop work order was placed on the property due to the replacement of a six foot fence with a new six foot fence that had an additional 2 feet of lattice at the top. The applicant was told to submit a permit and they did. The permit was denied for exceeding maximum fence height allowed. The request is to keep the six foot fence with the lattice. Planner Broedell said it was a total of 8 feet. He said that the extra 2 foot extension of the fence height was reason for denial. Planner Broedell said there is a Section 24-157(d) which allows structures intended primarily for creating privacy, the length is limited to 12 feet with a height of 8 feet and the side yard setbacks need to be met. Planner Broedell said there is the question of whether this is a fence or a structure intended for privacy. The applicant is proposing no side yard setbacks. Page 1 of 9 Ms. Simmons asked if there are different elevations from yard to yard. Planner Broedell said that the applicant had put the lattice on top of the fence for privacy reasons due to the townhome to the west having an elevated deck. He clarified that a fence doesn't require a setback but if it is considered a privacy screen then it needs to meet the side yard setbacks. Applicant Comment Sheila Powers Alesch and Ted Alesch introduced themselves as the homeowners of 1946 Beachside Court. Mr. Alesch said the main reason for the request is that the neighboring deck that should be 20 feet off the property line is 9 feet off the property line and it is 4 1/2 foot off grade. When the neighbors are out on their deck, the Alesch's 6 foot fence hits them in the waist. There hope was that the lattice would give them some privacy. Mr. Major asked the applicants if they felt like all eyes were on them when they are out in their back yard to which they said yes. The applicant said there are several homes that have the higher elevation. Public Comment Board Discussion Motion Staff Report Chair Lanier opened the floor to public comment. She said that the Board received communication from Gregory Richter, Jeff Barker and Michael Salerno in support of the variance. Susanne Barker of 1938 Beachside Court introduced herself as a neighbor of the Alesch's for 20 years. She said that the townhomes behind them are not abiding by the setbacks and this has caused problems. She is in support of the fence. Mr. Major wanted to know the Board's thoughts as to whether the fence obstructs light and air. Mr. Tingen said he sees this as an 8 foot fence request. Mr. Hansen said he saw the Swale and believes that the townhouses built decks because their yards were wet but in doing so they destroyed the privacy of the homes behind them. For that reason he doesn't have a problem with this variance. Ms. Simmons agreed that the topographical facts make the 8 foot fence into a 4 foot fence. Ms. Simmons motioned to approve ZVAR18-0020 due to the topographical issues. Mr. Hansen seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. B. ZVAR18-0021 PUBLIC HEARING (Ruthie Wilcher Cody and Allen J. Cody III) Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to increase the maximum fence height allowed in front yards from 4 feet to 6 feet to allow a 6 foot fence in the western frontyard of a double frontage lot. Planner Broedell said this is a request to increase the maximum fence height from 4 feet to 6 feet to allow a 6 foot fence in the western front yard of a double frontage lot. Planner Broedell said the proposed plan is to install a six foot fence on the vacant lot on the northern property line and part of the western property line. The need for a variance comes from the fact that Section 24-84 states that on double frontage lots the required front yard shall be provided on each street, thus making 2 required front yards. Section 24-157 limits the maximum fence height in front yards to 4 feet. He said that the applicants are having issues with people cutting through their vacant lot to Page 2 of 9 get to Donner Park. The main purpose of the fence would be to keep trespassers out. Planner Broedell said that the requirement for the front yard on both lots has been around since 1982. Ms. Simmons asked Planner Broedell to clarify where the existing fence is and whether it is nonconforming and he confirmed that it is a 6 foot fence so if it were a 4 foot fence the placement would be fine but the 6 foot fence needs a 20 foot setback. Applicant Comment Ruthie and Allen Cody introduced themselves as the homeowners of 1880 George Street. They shared some of their concerns and how their lot is being used as a pass through to the park. Many people will use the lot for their dogs and people walk through there at night. Ms. Cody said they would like to fence it in for privacy and safety. Public Comment Board Discussion Motion Ms. Simmons asked them if they are the only ones with an empty lot to pass through. Mr. Hansen asked about doing the 4 foot fence and Ms. Cody said the kids will climb it. Mr. Elmore said they could solve the problem by putting the 6 foot fence on the 20 foot setback for the front and rear. Chair Lanier opened the floor to public comment. Kirk Johnson introduced himself as someone who does a lot of work for the Cody's. He said that a lot of the traffic is drug related and they use the back street to do that. Ms. Simmons said that she is for a 6 foot fence on the property line. Mr. Hansen said his only concern is what the Board says to the next person who wants a 6 foot fence on the property line. She referred to approval reason #3 that speaks of exceptional circumstances as compared to other properties. Ms. Simmons motioned to approve ZVAR18-0021 due to exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area. Mr. Tingen seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-1. Mr. Major was a dissenting vote. C. Ordinance No. 90-19-238 PUBLIC HEARING AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, COUNTY OF DUVAL, STATE OF FLORIDA, AMENDING VARIOUS PROVISIONS RELATED TO MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS SURFACE LOT COVERAGE, STORMWATER AND DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES IN CHAPTER 24, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS; AMENDING SECTIONS. 24-17, DEFINITIONS, 24-64, VARIANCES; 24-66, STORMWATER, DRAINAGE, STORAGE AND TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS; 24-104, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE -FAMILY - LARGE LOT; 24-105, RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY; 24-106, RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY; 24-107, RESIDENTIAL GENERAL, TWO-FAMILY; 24-108, RESIDENTIAL GENERAL, MULTI -FAMILY; 24-115, RESIDENTIAL, SELVA MARINA; Page 3 of 9 Staff Report PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Director Corbin explained that this ordinance has been on the City Commission's radar as a priority since January of 2018. Jones -Edmunds did modeling for a single drainage basin and looked at different impervious surface scenarios. They found that local scale surface flooding would worsen due to the increases in run off volume due to additional impervious surface coverage. The additional run off adds stress to local scale drainage features that have already met or exceeded their hydraulic capacities. Systems that are already at or exceeding their capacities are prone to create nuisance flooding. The modeling assumed that all storm water structures and road side swales were well maintained. This means that they did not take into account anything that is failing or not being maintained. He said that at the request of the Commission, Staff reviewed the code and came up with a variety of things that can be tweaked. One possibility is the definition that talks about swimming pools not being considered as impervious surface. Previously pervious pavers receive a 50% credit when calculating the onsite storage requirements and also had the 50% maximum impervious surface limit for new residential development. Other issues in Section 24-66 had to do with the Director of Public Works being able to give administrative waivers, and credit that was given for previous impervious surface on-site when calculating required storage. There are issues with enforcement and making sure the on-site storage facilities are maintained. The language in the code is not very strong and there needs to be the ability to knock on someone's door and ask to come into their back yard if we know that there is an issue. Previously, you are not required to provide on-site storage if you're doing an addition or modification of up to 400 sf or by 10% (whichever is less). Director Corbin told the Board about an existing issue where a lot was redeveloped and the home is built out to 50% of the lot coverage and the rear of the lot was designated for on-site storage for their storm water. The homeowner put slate rock down on top of all of it. He said that Staff believes this happens pretty frequently once the CO is issued and a fence goes up. Impervious surface first showed up in the code in 1982 with a 35% maximum. That changed in 1998 to 50% which is currently the maximum. Commercial has been at 70% and no changes will be made to that. Staff presented to the Commission on October 22nd and the direction given was to eliminate the 50% credit for pavers, to remove the exemptions given for pools when doing on-site storage calculation, eliminate the grandfathering of pre-existing structures and pre-existing surface to be removed when calculating the on-site storage when there is a redevelopment of the lot, remove the waiver for Public Works and create a typical variance process and create better language to allow for better enforcement. Later the Commission added reducing the overall impervious surface ratio from 50% to 45% and that is included in this proposal. Page 4 of 9 Public Comment Director Corbin said that Staff has made recommendations as how to administer this. They added in modification of a sidewalk or driveway of an existing lot would not trigger this. They would also be able to do an addition of 150 sf. There would be a requirement for a declaration of a restricted covenant before a CO is issued. Before a CO is issued someone would have to go record the on-site requirements with the county so that a new owner would be aware of the on-site storage requirements. Staff include language as to conducting inspections on a property with reasonable notice and at reasonable times. Chair Lanier asked if a home is scraped does the new house have to abide by all of the Cities existing codes. Director Corbin said that the builder would get credit for all of the square footage of the previous house when doing the calculations for the new mitigation. Ms. Paul asked if a swale was the only form of mitigation or is the City open to other underground retention options. Director Corbin said that it is his understanding that it doesn't just have to be a swale. Mr. Hansen said it is his understanding the storm water drainage system as it stands today is not adequate. Director Corbin said that according to the report, some of the systems are exceeding capacity already and as impervious surface is added, it will stress those systems ever farther. Mr. Hansen wanted to know why and he is concerned that the engineers didn't answer that question. He believes that the required retention is not being enforced and there is too much impervious surface. Mr. Hansen said that before we start restricting what can be built, he would like to have an understanding of all of the things that can be done (i.e. better maintain the existing system, enforce the on-site retention, replacement of piping, sediment, etc.). He wanted to know if those are contributing to the problem or is it the 50% impervious surface. Director Corbin said based on what he read it was a combination of not enough retention and too much impervious surface. Mr. Hansen said he knows that is what the report said but it wasn't clear as to what the fix is. Mr. Major wanted to know what triggers an inspection of the property. Director Corbin said that the language in the proposal would give the ability (i.e. if a neighbor floods, street floods, etc.) to inspect those properties with reasonable notice given and at a reasonable time. Chair Lanier asked if the City has a clear assessment of the level of failing for the storm water system. Director Corbin said that is detailed in the storm water master plan. He said it talks about issues that need to be upgraded and replaced throughout the City. Chair Lanier opened the floor to public comment. She said that and email was received from Jamie Eaton. Susanne Barker of 1938 Beachside Court said she was in favor of the proposal and urged the Board to support it. Page 5 of 9 Lewis Wolfrom of 2033 Selva Madera Court said that he has firsthand experience with the process. He said his first permit was denied due to storm water issues. He worked with Mr. Williams and they came up with a plan by which Mr. Wolfrom had to install retention areas and gutters. He was concerned about the restrictions on swimming pools and wanted to know if any kind of analysis. He wanted to know if this would eliminate swimming pools as an option for someone who would like to have one. Matthew Eaton of 1747 Live Oak Lane said that he and his wife own a drainage supply company. They supply drainage supplies to commercial and residential properties to the sub -contractors and general contractors that install them. He said that swales are commonly done in the City due to the expense and the trees and their roots. He believes that the proposal is double dipping with pools being disallowed and going from 50 to 45%. Mr. Eaton said that someone with a half -acre lot wouldn't have the option to install a pool. He agreed that the engineering company who presented the proposal needs to be asked if this is more of an issue in old AB or the east side of Seminole. Mr. Eaton said that the soil in the Selva Marina area is extremely sandy and he believes that if an evaluation was done it would show very little run off. He said the proposal is extremely restrictive and it will significantly disallow a lot of future redevelopment. Lisa Herrold of 659 Sherry Drive said she grew up in Atlantic Beach and has watched the development and redevelopment. She has issues with water from her neighbor. She does believe a lot of it is in old AB. She approves of the proposal. Sally Maddy of 1915 Creekside Circle wanted to know if the City could consider other options such as storm water mining. It would allow for the recycling of water. Jordan Clarkson of 2015 Vela Norte Circle said that the proposal mentioned that this was done on a typical area of redevelopment. Mr. Clarkson said that the area he lives in doesn't look anything like that and does not look like the old AB area. He said they have swales behind them, retention areas and has never seen his street or retention area flood. Mr. Clarkson said it seems like this have more to do with redevelopment verses the areas that are viable, they're handling the water and have good soil percolation. He said that a 400 sf pool usually maintains approximately 6 inches of clearance before it would overflow and that would be about 1500 gallons of water. He said that he has a pool, has gone through several hurricanes and nor'easters and never seen his pool overflow. Mr. Clarkson added that he concerned about invasion of privacy by an official who can drive by and take a best guess at what is causing an issue. He believes there needs to be stronger wording before giving that right. Mr. Eaton returned to the podium, he said that the Water Management Districts accepts permeable pavers. He said that it took about 30 years for this to happen. Mr. Eaton said he hopes the Board will consider that. Joe Gerrity introduced himself as the City Manager of Atlantic Beach. Mr. Gerrity said that he wanted to clarify some of the questions regarding the operation of the City. As Page 6 of 9 Board Discussion far as the storm water system, he said that it is maintained as well as it can possibly be maintained. Mr. Gerrity said that the City purchased a vacuum truck which has allowed for a more efficient job of cleaning. He said that all of the storm systems are on rotation. Mr. Gerrity said that if there is a storm event at high tide then all bets are off. He said that the only thing the City has going for it is its pervious surface. Mr. Gerrity gave the example of the flooding in the Aquatic area from the storm in 2015. He said that the City has spent between $15 and $20K to correct a situation that has been affecting a citizen for about 10 years. He believes that once the CO is issued then the City has no way to see if pavers, patios, etc. are added and no way to enforce the impervious ratio. Mr. Hansen thanked the City Manager for answering his question regarding the maintenance of the current system. Ms. Lanier asked Staff if there is any other situation that happens that allows a City Official to go onto a property. Ms. Durden said that one example is if there is a need to look at what the conditions of approval for an exception were, to confirm compliance or to consider a SPA that has specific conditions regarding its rezoning. Ms. Paul said that she objects to the 45% and would like for it to be back to 50%. She said a pool that is down 6 inches will hold quite a bit of water. Regarding pavers, she would like to see the restrictions be in line with the Water Management District. Ms. Paul said that tying the property access to the title is no more obtrusive than similar HOA restrictions. Mr. Major said that he thought the changes were a little bit draconian and not founded in deep engineering analysis. He agrees that the impervious limits shouldn't be increased but that the enforcement would be good. Mr. Hansen said he asked the engineers if the 3 or 4 square blocks that they based the findings on is consistent with the rest of the City and they said it was. But he said he is concerned because he has heard several public comments saying that they don't experience any problems with drainage in the areas where they live. Mr. Hansen would like to see the pavers be better defined since there are some pavers that are pervious and could be allowed. He believes that it is important to have enforcement for on-site retention because he thinks that has a lot to do with the problems. He would like to see this done before telling people that they can't build on 55% of their lot. Mr. Hansen said he would like to see it stay at 50%. Mr. Tingen said he has a pool and he believes it prevented flooding on his own property. He commended Staff on all of the work and he commend the City Manager on the purchase of the vacuum truck. Mr. Elmore said that he works with storm water issues daily and has for 25 years as a landscape architect. He said that he believes there are other solutions to the runoff that need to be considered. He pointed out that the soils in AB are different in different areas and the water table varies due to elevation and soil. Mr. Elmore said that there are broader holistic things to consider. He said there are several places in the City that Page 7 of 9 ponds could be dug and help alleviate some of the problems of flooding in the core City. Mr. Elmore said that area is the only area he knows that floods unless you are close to the intracoastal. He pointed out several areas that don't flood due to their ponds and areas that don't flood due to the old trough and dune system which works well and is a natural drainage system. Mr. Elmore said that old Core city has very few pipes or storm gutters. He thinks that the City needs to put in a storm water collection system in that area and run it to designated areas like Howell Park or Johansen Park. Mr. Elmore said that he is concerned about putting all of the burden on the property owner. He said that any systems put in by property owners will eventually degrade and silt in, whereas the ponds can be maintained by the City. Mr. Elmore would like to do a Storm Water Master Plan which included lakes, ponds and storm water systems. He said that by the time a homeowner builds a house and puts in a driveway it is hard enough to stay at 50% and he would like to see the 50% remain. Mr. Elmore said that he agrees with the previous comments on pools and they should remain pervious. He said that the City needs to do further research what they can do without putting the responsibility on the homeowners. Ms. Simmons said she would like to see if there are options in regards to the pavers. She believes that great changes have been made and would like to see that researched further. Ms. Simmons said that she didn't realize that there was flooding in old Atlantic Beach. She lives in that area and hasn't seen her area flood. Ms. Lanier asked how other communities handled pools. Director Corbin said they didn't research that, they did discuss not being able to control or monitor whether people cover their pools or not. She mentioned that she has seen people seal there pavers making them impervious. Ms. Lanier thought that on-site storage enforcement was needed. She disagreed with giving a credit to someone who is scrapping a house and she would like to see that pass. Mr. Hansen said it appears that the flooding that he has seen has been caused by something a neighbor did that redirected the water runoff. He would like to see open grass pavers defined differently. Mr. Elmore spoke about the different types of pavers and most of them will eventually fill with sand. That is why he hates to see the onerous put on the homeowner. He said that looking at bigger systems that the City can control and periodically dredge out is a much better way to proceed. Ms. Simmons asked for clarification on the part that Public Works would play. Director Corbin said that Public Works would still do their review but they would no longer administratively waive any of the requirements, it would have to go through a formal variance request process and come before the Board. Mr. Major said that he would vote no on the Ordinance as it reads right now. Ms. Paul said that she thinks the Board should vote no on the document as a whole in hopes that the City Commission would hear the variety of opinions. She said that she doesn't Page 8 of 9 Motion 5. REPORTS feel like they have addressed the storm water situation for the City but instead, it passes it on to the homeowner. Ms. Paul said that the City needs a master storm water system like other communities have and the City does not have one. She said she doesn't think this fixes the problem but only passes the buck on to future generations. Mr. Hansen agreed that it needs a holistic approach. Chair Lanier asked the Board if there are any pieces that the Board finds common sense. Ms. Paul said that the removal of Public Works to administratively grant a variance. Mr. Elmore said that there is a formula that was created by past Public Works Director Rick Carper. It determined how much water you would have to store on your property. It was based on facts and variables, one variable was the water table. The City only gives the top 3 feet in calculating but if you are in a high, dry place it is likely that you wouldn't hit water for 6 or more feet. Mr. Elmore said he believes the Public Works Director should have some flexibility due to what the soil allows. Ms. Paul was concerned that this might vary from Director to Director. Ms. Simmons said that at this point, the Board should just send one or two conditions forward. Mr. Elmore motioned to deny Ordinance 90-19-238 on all points until further defined. Ms. Paul seconded the motion. Mr. Hansen wanted to amend the motion to add that they come back with a more holistic approach. Mr. Elmore agreed and told Staff that there are a lot of good parts but still a lot of question marks to let it go through. Ms. Paul seconded amended the motion. The motion carried unanimously. There were no reports. 6. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. 7. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Elmore motioned to adjourn the meeting at 8:15 p.m. Mr. Tingen seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Attest Page 9 of 9