On March 28, 2023 council held a workshop on the Supplemental Standards section for the LDC. These are my notes from the meeting. Official Minutes will be included, when available.
Kimley Horn on Zoom
Two public workshops for LDC update – Dates TBD
COJBupdate.com for resident feedback on the LDC
Next workshop April 27th – Sandy and Greg can’t make it. Looking for alternative dates
May into June workshops
The Supplemental Standards Section is the catch-all basin for items that don’t really fit elsewhere. Not going over every section tonight
Accessory structures on residential properties-
Focus is residential – used for storage and parking (not for separate living space)
Question for Council – do we want to open this up a bit?
- Chris – what’s the downside of allowing them? Could be increasing the density in certain areas that conflict with the comp plan.
- Upside is the City would have control over where they go and that they are safe for inhabiting; allows for more housing at an affordable price point.
- Dan – good with storage and parking, not necessarily for living quarters – lot size, drainage
- If City does allow for living, then there would need to be a lot of regulation attached to them
- Current allowable size 620 sq ft – looking at making it smaller if staying with storage purpose
- Sandy – If single family zone, should be single family
- City is getting a lot of requests for secondary living structures (~3-4/wk)
- Cory – ok with living space for family/guests, but just not for STRs. Knows the City can’t stop them from becoming STRs.
- Chris – concerned this would be a gateway to things getting out of control
- Greg – has concerns with using these structures for living space
Proximity requirement 500ft. (Exemp: hotels with 10+ rooms and restaurants)
Can currently be approved through rezoning.
- Cory thinks they are easier to control if they are close together. Downtown bars are currently in nonconforming status and didn’t need conditional use. Most recently seen with Bo’s (more than 6 mo).
- Chris – why 500’? – Answer: adopted from the state, generally used.
- Dan doesn’t see why there is a set distance bar to bar. Sees it from schools and churches. Just wants to work on the definition.
- All but 2 quota licenses are in the downtown area
- Sandy – supports keeping it the way it is so we can change the feel of the downtown and promote a diversity of businesses. Chris rebutted that they are already there. She wants there to be some flexibility on where bars can locate (at least in the downtown area). Likes Cory’s idea of a centralized bar area.
- Cory likes the idea of having the downtown be a bar area so they stay out of neighborhoods. HS639 may be impacting size requirement for a restaurant.
- Heather noted that they can look at different proximity requirements in different areas.
- COJ offers a waiver for bars that want to open too close to another bar.
- Heather will talk to Police Chief about the police perspective on clustering bars
Recreational vehicles and boats –
Ideas tossed out by Heather: They should be licensed and registered at that home; limiting the number of boats; prohibited in some areas
- Dan likes the registration to that household. Also does not want JB to turn into an HOA
- Sandy supports the ideas thrown out, and limiting the number of boats
- This is only for the front of the house
- Cory – if RV is less than 20 ft ok for the front yard (match with the boat rule)
Maintenance currently has no timeframe. Loading/unloading only 24 hours. Discussed changing to 48 for load/unload; 30 days for maintenance. Heather will look at what other communities are doing
Recently added 8’ solid rear fences for homes abutting commercial
- Cory – what about homes backing up to A1A and other busy roads?
- Heather would like to add these to the 8’ allowance to rear and side yards
- Dan ok with main roads, but not in residential areas
- Maybe up to 6’ in front for properties on A1A
- Dan like the admin approach for flexibility
Outdoor seating for bars and restaurants –
Question for Council: Do we want to increase the current 50% rule (50% of the whole building is used to calculate allowable outdoor seating area)
- Cory is concerned about any increase in allowing this outdoor seating to be applied wrongly for restaurants that want to be bars (having the majority of the required seats outside)
- The calculation is based on the sq ft of the building, not the ‘dining’ area
- The only space for current restaurants to expand is to start taking over parking spots
- Mike seems to be leaning towards increasing this.
- Cory sees 50% of the dining area. Chris likes the idea of having different rules for the downtown area
Vacation rentals –
Hands tied by the state
The code will be updated based on this legislative session. Once that is known, they can look at this again
Balcony encroachments –
Current no encroachment over setback second/third floors)
Would like to allow for small encroachments (2-3 ft, no more than 5ft, and 5 only in rear property) over setbacks.
- Dan is ok with not having balconies count toward lot coverage
- Dan ok with back or front, not with side yard balconies
- Have a minimum side yard setback if they want a balcony
Like to add info on how we treat how decks, patios, etc count towards lot coverage. This would codify the current interpretation of how to treat different materials and lot coverage
This will provide clarity
Standards and Conditional for conditional uses –
Would like to come up with a set of conditions for when conditions can be used. e.g. a list of possible minimum conditions that can be used for applicants who are seeking a conditional use permit.
Also can be used as substantial evidence for legal protections
Provides clarity for the applicant and the PC
Follow us on social media and share with your friends and neighbors!
This is the official website for Protect the Beach Life.
Paid for by Protect the Beach Life, a Political Action Committee. Donations are not tax-deductible.