Loading...
04-16-19 CDB Meeting Minutes1 .11S Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the SSS a COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD April 16, 2019 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chair Hansen. Mr. Tingen, Ms. Lanier and Mr. Major were all present. Ms. Simmons, Mr. Elmore and Ms. Paul were absent. Also present were Director Shane Corbin, Principal Planner Derek Reeves, Planner 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 March 20, 2019 Regular Meeting of the Community Development Board. Mr. Tingen motioned to approve the minutes. Mr. Paul seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. 3. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. 4. NEW BUSINESS A. ZVAR19-0007 PUBLIC HEARING (Holstar, LLC) Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, for relief from stormwater retention and from floodplain compensation as required by Section 24-66 at 650 Begonia Street (Lots 1-6 Block 138 Section "H'). Staff Report Director Corbin presented the information as explained in the staff report. He also had a PowerPoint presentation that included pictures and maps. Applicant Comment Stephen Starke of 632 Pine Street in Neptune Beach introduced himself. He said that his engineer has proof that SJWM (St. Johns Water Management) states that if you are on a tidal basin (i.e. the intracoastal, canal or creek), then retention is not required. Mr. Starke said he is aware that there are neighbors who have concerns because they are already experiencing flooding on Begonia Street. Mr. Starke presented some pictures and maps to the Board. He used the pictures to explain that his property is the only property to actually have a ditch that is in the right-of-way. He added that his property also has a ditch to the south and west, giving him 3 ditches to handle stormwater runoff. Mr. Starke had pictures to show that there is no retention on any of the properties on Begonia other than his. He said that his property has ample ability for runoff that goes into the intracoastal. Page 1 of 11 Mr. Starke went on to explain that FEMA requires a stem wall system of 6 feet and the City requires another 2.5 feet which puts the ground floor of the homes at 8.5 feet. The ground will not be any higher than it currently is. He presented a survey and pointed out that the water will be flowing from his propertyto the back and connecting into the existing ditch. Mr. Starke added that the ditch from his driveway flows toward 6th Street to the culvert. He explained that he is a military veteran and he is building affordable housing that is marketed to the military families in Mayport. David Touring introduced himself as the President of The Touring Company and a licensed profession engineer. He said that he doesn't believe that the initial variance request is needed because he said they already meet the code regarding stormwater attenuation. Mr. Touring said that he took a look at the platted lots and the requirement for stormwater attenuation which is based on the State of Florida Water Management Guidelines. One of the stipulations is that if you are in or adjacent to a tidally influenced area then attenuation has no affect and is not required. For that reason he said they do not have to provide stormwater runoff because all 6 lots front on a tidally influenced drainage ditch. Mr. Touring addressed the second part of the variance. He said they are within the 100 year flood plan at an elevation of 4.5 and the base elevation is 6. Mr. Touring went on to explain why the requirement is not necessary: 1) State requirements indicates that the property is clearly outside of the 10 year flood elevation; 2) the platted lots were established in 1944 before the requirements then the property would be grandfathered. He added that they are willing to provide varying degrees of compensation and he gave the example of adding smart vents. Mr. Touring said that the home will have to be on a stem wall which they can either fill or leave it open and provide the smart vents to allow for storage. He said they would only need to prove that the stem walls do not cause a rise in flood elevation more than 1 foot above the existing base flood elevation. There was further discussion of how smart vents work. Ms. Lanier said she was confused about the 1944 platting since the other lots in the neighborhood were platted around the same time and they have to conform to the code. Director Corbin said it would depend on when the home is built on the lot and not when the lot was platted. He said that if the lot is platted and the stormwater requirements change before the home is built then it is required to meet the current standards. Ms. Durden agreed. Ms. Lanier asked if these properties ever had anything built on them and Director Corbin said they did not. Ms. Durden said that even if they had been built on in the past it would be today's regulations that apply. Ms. Lanier asked about the ditch that runs between the 6 lots and the Dagley property. She said that it looks like it runs back and forth between the property line so who actually owns it and could the Dagley's fill it in. Planner Reeves confirmed that the ditch spans both properties. He said that the pre-existing water flow has to be maintained. If either side obstructed the flow then the other side could seek legal action to maintain the flow since it is pre-existing. Mr. Starke said that he has a letter from Donald Dagley stating that he would keep that ditch open. Page 2 of 11 Public Comment Mr. Tingen asked Mr. Starke about the existing flooding of the neighborhood. Mr. Starke said that there needs to be a ditch for that part of the neighborhood. There was further discussion regarding a couple of the driveways in the neighborhood that have piping running underneath them. Mr. Touring said they feel like they are meeting the requirements of the City. He said they are more than willing to work with City Staff and Engineers to come up with an acceptable solution. Ms. Lanier asked whether Mr. Touring had reviewed whether or not the 2 ditches will manage the runoff from the 6 lots. He said that based on his estimation, the size of the lots and 30 years of experience, there is plenty of conveyance in the ditches and under the culverts to handle the runoff that would be generated by the 6 lots. Mr. Starke said that the properties will drain to the west and the ditch under the driveways will drain to the back side which goes to the intracoastal. He said he had discussions with the Public Works Director and when the time comes they will figure out the diameter of the culvert pipes. Mr. Starke said there is plenty of depth in that ditch to put the pipe and the driveway over that, similar to 890 Begonia. It will be City approved and it will handle the water out on the street. The water from the property will flow to the ditch at the back which is used exclusively by his property and the Dagley property to flow out to the Intracoastal. Mr. Major asked Mr. Touring what prevents them from providing on-site storage. Mr. Touring said that there is literally no need to due to the tidally influenced discharge point. He said that if they approached the Water Management District and asked for a permit they would say that you don't need attenuation. Chair Hansen opened the floor to public comment. Susanne Barker spoke against approval of the variance. Steven Breckenridge spoke against approval the variance. He provided pictures on his phone (later emailed to the CD Department). Ms. Durden asked him to show his photographs to the applicant, Mr. Starke and his engineer, Mr. Touring. Joan Horn spoke against approval of the variance. Kim Lindeman spoke against approval of the variance. Ralph Jones filled out a card but was not available to speak. Pete Moreland spoke against approval of the variance. Joss Downing spoke of ongoing changes to the code and drainage issues he has in a different part of the City. John Flynn spoke against approval of the variance. Page 3 of 11 Board Discussion Motion Staff Report Mark Gabrynowicz spoke against approval of the variance. Chair Hansen said that he had ex parte communication with Joan Horn via a two-page email. He also had ex parte communication with Susan Beaty who lives on Begonia. Mr. Tingen said that he had ex parte communication with Joan Horn via email and a phone conversation. Ms. Lanier said that she had ex parte communication with Joan Horn via email and a phone conversation. Mr. Major said that he had ex parte communication with Joan Horn via email. Ms. Durden asked them to clarify that they will make their decision based on what they heard at the meeting and not from the ex parte communications, whether email or otherwise. All Board members did so. Ms. Lanier said she has concerns with the drainage ditch in back of the property. She did not like the idea that water runoff was draining into the intracoastal. Mr. Major asked if it was a permitted use for the property to the drain the way it is draining. Director Corbin said that they do not meet the design standards and that is why they applied for a variance. He said that they may be a bit of gray area if they go a St. John's River Water Management permit. Mr. Tingen said he has concerns about the drainage into the intracoastal. He would like to see the issues with the flooding in the neighborhood resolved. Chair Hansen said that he got a sense that what is being proposed will very well work but he didn't get any guarantees. He said he doesn't want to put his name on something that ends up being a problem. Ms. Lanier motioned to deny part 1 of the request for a variance ZVAR19-0007 due to the general health, welfare or beauty of the community. Mr. Tingen seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Lanier asked Director Corbin to present the second part of the variance. Director Corbin said he was going to have Steve Swann, the City Engineer speak. Mr. Swann explained to the Board that the second part of the variance related to filling in the flood plain. He gave an example of throwing a brick into a bucket of water, thus increasing the water level. Mr. Swann said that the rule requires that if you make the water level rise then you have to take out an equivalent amount somewhere else. He said that the 100 year flood for this property comes from the intracoastal and not from the upstream side. Mr. Swann said that the rule doesn't really apply to this situation. Ms. Lanier asked why then is there a need for a variance. He said that the rule applies but the necessity does not. Mr. Swann said that the rule is written to cover the entire City and doesn't contemplate areas like this along the waterway. He said that the permitting agency considers the Intracoastal Waterway to be an infinite sink, meaning Page 4 of 11 Motion Staff Report you can't really do much to alter the water level of the Intracoastal Waterway. Ms. Lanier asked if changing the flood plain on the six properties change the flooding in the neighborhood. Mr. Swann said no, not on a 100 year flood event. He said this is not related to a heavy afternoon rain. Mr. Hansen asked Director Corbin whether they can deny the first part of the variance and approve the second part. Director Corbin explained the difference. Mr. Swann said to think storm surge and not rainfall. Director Corbin said that the Board can make the condition for the smart vents to be required. Ms. Lanier motioned to approve part 2 of the request for a variance ZVAR19-0007 with the condition that the six homes are constructed with smart vents due to the exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property. Mr. Tingen seconded the motion. He still had concerns about the smart vents. Director Corbin said that if the Board didn't approve the variance then Staff would work with the City Engineer. Mr. Major said that it was his understanding that this variance isn't necessary. Director Corbin said yes because even without smart vents, the amount of displaced water volume wouldn't have an effect on making the water levels rise. The motion passed 3-1. Mr. Tingen was the dissenting vote. B. ZVAR19-0003 PUBLIC HEARING (Devajyoti Ghose) Request for two variances as permitted by Section 24-64, to increase the maximum impervious surface allowed within the Residential, Single Family (RS -2) zoning district and for relief from required stormwater retention at 317 East Coast Drive (Lot 25 Atlantic Beach Terrace). Planner Reeves presented the information as explained in the staff report. He also had a PowerPoint presentation that included pictures and maps. Mr. Major asked if the Code case against the property was a part of this. Planner Reeves said that yes, a stop work order was placed on the property because there was no permit, it couldn't be resolved with a permit due to the excess impervious surface and the stormwater retention, it went to the Code Enforcement Board and since the new ordinance allows for variances for impervious surfaces. This allowed them to come before the CD Board to ask for relief with a variance, which if approved, would bring them into compliance and eliminate the Code case. Planner Reeves explained that the back yard stormwater retention area was 17'x 20'x 1' deep. Ms. Lanier asked if there was a way to redesign this area and he said no, because the house already exceeds the 45%. He said that because they applied for a permit when it was 50% then there is 19 sf of impervious area left. Mr. Hansen asked what would bring them into compliance. Planner Reeves said that if they were to remove all the flagstone and the shell from the retention area and build it back to way it was originally then no variance would be needed and the Code case would be closed. There was further discussion on what some of the consequences could be. Page 5of11 Applicant Comment Kira Mauro introduced herself as living at 317 East Coast Drive. She said that they were not asking for the second part of the variance. Ms. Morrow said that they didn't reduce the retention area but increased the height of the berm which increased the stormwater retention area. She explained that the grass in the retention continued to die, even after re -sodding. Ms. Morrow said that 6 inches of soil was removed from the area, then it was filled in with a 6 inch layer of dread shell, which she said can't be compressed and serves as an effective drainage field. On top of that are flag stone pavers which she said are spaced up to 12 inches apart. Ms. Morrow feels that what they did improved the drainage and stormwater retention. Public Comment Board Discussion Mr. Major asked if it has effected the neighbors. Ms. Morrow said that before they made the changes, water would flow into the street and to the neighbor behind them. She said that no longer happens with the changes they have made. Ms. Lanier asked Staff if they have a pervious rating for the shell. Director Corbin said they don't have the specs on that. She asked about the flag stone and how to rate it if they are not side by side. Director Corbin said that turf lock is considered as pervious but he was not sure how to measure that. Chair Hansen opened the floor to public comment. Mary Beth Koechlin spoke in favor of approving the variance. Andrew Howe of 265 3rd Street spoke in favor of approving the variance. Doc Ghose of 317 East Coast Drive spoke in favor of approving the variance. Susanne Barker of 1938 Beachside Court spoke against approving the variance. John Flynn of 315 5th Street spoke against approving the variance. Mark Gabrynowicz of 1907 North Sherry Drive spoke against approving the variance. Mr. Major asked if the applicant had actually improved the drainage based on what neighbors had to say. Ms. Lanier asked Staff if the flagstone was the main issue. Planner Reeves said that the City is not convinced that there is any retention at this time and the flagstone does exceed the pervious limit. Ms. Lanier asked what the applicant could do that wouldn't increase the impervious percentage. Planner Reeves said that the shell would likely be considered pervious, the issue becomes the usability of the retention area and its ability to hold water. Any solid surface on a retention area increases the impervious surface. Director Corbin added that they could do a wood deck. Planner Reeves agreed that a wood deck elevated 2 inches above the ground with proper gaps between the boards is considered 100% impervious by the code. Mr. Page 6 of 11 Motion Staff Report Tingen asked if Staff was offering the applicant any solutions and Planner Reeves said Staff always tries to work with an applicant. Ms. Lanier said that if the applicant would have applied for a permit then they would have realized what the options were. She said this is a slippery slope. Chair Hansen agreed that today it will be a certain percent and tomorrow someone will want more. Ms. Lanier motioned to deny both parts of ZVAR19-0003 due to 1) public safety, including risk of fire, flood, crime or other threats to public safety and 2) the general health, welfare or beauty of the community. Mr. Major seconded the motion. The applicant withdrew the second part of the variance. The motion passed unanimously. C. ZVAR19-0006 PUBLIC HEARING (John and Sandra Farhat) Request fora variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to increase the maximum impervious surface allowed on a residential lot from 50% as required by Section 24-17 to 58% to allow for the installation of a swimming pool at 1689 North Linkside Court (Lot 122 Selva Linkside Unit 2). Planner Broedell presented the information as explained in the staff report. He also had a PowerPoint presentation that included pictures and maps. Planner Broedell reminded the Board that variances do stay with the property. Mr. Hansen asked if it will be possible for the applicant to remove enough pavers to get down to 50%. Planner Broedell said that the driveway would have to be replaced with something else or a good chunk removed. Mr. Hansen asked if they had to get to 45% or 50% to be compliant. She said that the applicant presented the pool application prior to the 45% effective date, it could be ruled either way. Ms. Lanier asked about it being in a PUD. Planner Broedell confirmed but said the PUD language doesn't specify a maximum impervious surface, so it defaults to the City's specifications. Mr. Major asked if it should have gone to Code Enforcement first. Director Corbin said that these issues can be discovered through an applicant applying for a permit or a neighbor complaint which would have taken it through Code Enforcement. There was further discussion about what the applicant could do to achieve the 50%. Applicant Comment Sandy Farhat introduced herself as the owner (along with her husband) of 1689 North Linkside Court. She spoke about the history and said that the pavers were put in by the previous owner in 2001. Ms. Farhat said that they have been able to identify approx. 114 sf that they can remove from the driveway, a covered porch area and another area. She said that even if they removed all of the pavers in the driveway and replaced them with permeable pavers they would still be 3% over the 50%. Ms. Farhat said that they will do whatever it takes and having a pool is important to her and her husband. Ms. Lanier asked if all of the pavers would be removed and Ms. Farhat confirmed they would be. She said the house by itself is 45%. Page 7of11 Public Comment Board Discussion Motion Staff Report Director Corbin said that Staff would be willing to work with the applicant to get the number down to 50% with the pool and then the application can be withdrawn. Chair Hansen said he would like to see that happen. Mr. Tingen asked the applicant what the cost would be to remove the pavers and she said it would be part of the pool plan. He also asked Director Corbin if it is going to be difficult for homeowners to put in a pool due to the new rules. Director Corbin confirmed it will be difficult but not impossible. Ashley Cribbs, owner of Southern Elegance Pools, asked the Board if anyone ever gets approved for a pool variance and Mr. Hansen said they do. Chair Hansen opened the floor to public comment. Susanne Barker of 1938 Beachside Court spoke against approving the variance. Ms. Lanier asked if the applicant wanted work with Staff to get to the 50% then does the Board need to take an action. Director Corbin said the Board could defer to the next meeting to see if Staff can get it to 50% or below and then it could be withdrawn. If not it would come back to the Board to see how close it got to the 50%. The applicant asked how a homeowner is supposed to know these things before buying. She agreed to defer the variance until she has worked with Staff. Ms. Lanier motioned to defer ZVAR19-0006 until the next meeting. Mr. Major asked a question on the Code process. Director Corbin walked through the process possibilities and how it can go different ways. Mr. Tingen seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. D. ZVAR19-0005 PUBLIC HEARING (Ellen Golombek) Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to decrease the required side yard setback from a combined 15 feet with a minimum of 5 feet on either side to a combined 11.5 feet with a minimum of 0 feet on one side at 375 3rd Street (Lot 26 Block 5 Atlantic Beach). Planner Broedell presented the information as explained in the staff report. He also had a PowerPoint presentation that included pictures and maps. Planner Broedell said the current code doesn't specifically address setbacks for attached townhomes. As a result, all additions must meet the required setbacks of the zoning district. Ms. Lanier said she doesn't understand why the setback goes from 0 feet to 5 feet. Planner Broedell explained that it defaults to the 5 feet due to the lack of specification in the code. He confirmed that all of the other setbacks are okay. Page 8 of 11 Applicant Comment Ellen Golombek introduced himself as the owner of 375 3rd Street. She gave a little history as to her home and the process that brought her to need a variance. Ms. Golombek said she has the approval of several neighbors and can provide letters and a petition. Public Comment Board Discussion Motion Staff Report Ms. Durden explained to the Board that the Staff defaults to the 5 foot setback since there isn't anything specific in the code. Director Corbin verified that there is a petition with 12 names on it in support and 3 letters that the applicant has provided. Chair Hansen opened the floor to public comment. Susanne Barker of 1938 Beachside Court asked if the addition to the home would go over the impervious surface limit and Director Corbin said it would not. There was no further discussion. Ms. Lanier motioned to approve ZVAR19-0005 due to 1) surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby properties, 2) exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area, and 3) onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after construction of improvement upon the property. Mr. Major seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. E. ZVAR19-0008 PUBLIC HEARING (Kyle Stucki) Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to reduce the vehicle use area perimeter landscape buffer for side property lines from 5 feet as required by Section 24-177(d)(2) to 3 feet and to reduce the minimum required parking from 16 spaces as required by Section 24-161(h)(8) to 9 spaces to allow the reconfiguration of existing nonconforming parking at Saltair Section 3 Lots 834-834 and 850 (aka 425 Atlantic Boulevard). Planner Reeves explained to the Board that this request initially asked for a reduction in the landscape buffer and a reduction in parking. He said that the parking reduction issue has been resolved and it will not be part of the consideration currently before the Board. Planner Reeves presented the information as explained in the staff report. He also had a PowerPoint presentation that included pictures and maps. Applicant Comment Charles Dewitt introduced himself. Ms. Lanier asked if the green area was a courtyard and Mr: Dewitt said it was. He said the main access will be Sturdivant and they will Page 9 of 11 Public Comment Board Discussion Motion Staff Report alleviate the front entrance and make it safer for hotel guests and pedestrians. Mr. Dewitt said that they are also remodeling. Chair Hansen opened the floor to public comment. Susanne Barker of 1938 Beachside Court spoke against the change of the entrance. Planner Reeves explained that there is no requirement for which street a commercial property must access from. Ms. Lanier said she didn't have an issue with the change of the entrance. Mr. Hansen said that the change in the entrance wasn't part of request and there is no need for discussion. Mr. Major motioned to approve ZVAR19-0008 due to 1) exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property and 2) irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration. Ms. Lanier seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. F. UBEX19-0002 PUBLIC HEARING (Thomas Horn) Request for a use -by -exception as permitted by Section 24-111(c)(3), to allow on -premises consumption of beer and wine in accordance with Chapter 3 of the code within the Commercial General (CG) zoning district at 25 West 6th Street. Director Corbin presented the information as explained in the staff report. He also had a PowerPoint presentation that included pictures and maps. Applicant Comment Thomas Horn introduced himself and his team as representing Pubs n' Pits. He said they specialize in the installation and maintenance of beer systems and grill systems for home and residential use. Mr. Horn said they want to establish a sip and shop environment where you can come and sample the products that they have (i.e. sauces, rubs, beers, etc.). In addition to that, they would like to have the capability to have people come in and sample beers and wines and take them home. Their normal business hours would be no later than 9:00 p.m. Tuesday -Saturday. Public Comment Mr. Tingen asked when they would start. Mr. Horn said hopefully in the next 2-6 weeks. Chair Hansen opened the floor to public comment. Page 10 of 11 Board Discussion Motion S. REPORTS Susanne Barker of 1938 Beachside Court spoke against approval of the variance. She brought up the fact that the website spoke of selling liquor to which Mr. Horn said that the website is a prototype and not their production website. He said they have no desire to establish liquor sales. Mr. Tingen asked Mr. Horn how many parking spaces they have. Mr. Horn said they have about 7-8 parking spaces. Ms. Lanier motioned to recommend UBEX19-0002 due to 1) it's consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and 2) it is consistent with the Commissions stated goal of Mayport Road Corridor Improvements. Mr. Tingen seconded the motion. Several Board members voiced their approval of this project. The motion passed unanimously. There were no reports. 6. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. 7. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Hansen adjourned the meeting at 9:29 p.m. Kirk Hansen, Chair Attest Page 11 of 11