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