Design review board approves attached garage at 645 Winfield Drive

The Town of Orange Park Planning & Zoning Board, acting as the Design Review Board, voted 5-0 to approve DRB-9-2024, a design-review application for an approximately 800-square-foot attached garage at 645 Winfield Drive.

The board approved the application based on staff recommendations and the design criteria in section 2.05.19(f) of the town’s code, after hearing a staff presentation, remarks from the applicant and his contractor, legal guidance on how the code should be interpreted, and a discussion in which several board members urged clarifying the town’s Land Development Regulations.

Staff planner Steven Smith told the board the addition would attach to the rear of an existing side-entry double garage and that drawings show the roofline and exterior walls matching the house’s existing gable and shingle profile. "Based on the design criteria outlined in section 2.05.19 of the zoning code, staff recommends approval of application DRB-9-2024," Smith said. Smith described the proposed exterior as roughly 50% brick veneer (about 4 feet high) and 50% smooth fiber-cement siding (such as Hardie board), with a building height shown at about 12.7 feet.

Town Attorney Hodges advised the board on interpretation of the code’s language, saying the term "similar" should be read as "resemble" rather than "identical." "The term 'similar' ... means to resemble, doesn't have to be identical," Hodges said, noting the code requires a combined showing of similarity in architecture, materials and color.

Applicant and builder Joe Wiggins, who attended and gave a brief statement, said exact brick-size matches were not feasible because of the house’s age but that color and gable siding would be matched as closely as practical. "We have the intent of trying to best match — the age of this house, you're not gonna get the exact brick size. We got pretty close with the brick color," Wiggins said.

Board members spent substantial time debating two related issues: whether the board’s role is strictly architectural/aesthetic and whether the town’s Land Development Regulations (LDRs) contain internal conflicts about when site-plan approval is required versus when building permits may be issued. Board member Pete Johnson argued the LDRs contain conflicting provisions governing site-plan approval and permit issuance and urged a code cleanup: "Our LDRs are in conflict and we should clean them up," Johnson said. Several members echoed the need to revisit and clarify the LDR language.

Attorney Hodges told the board that, despite those broader conflicts, the board had a concrete duty in the meeting to apply the design-review criteria. "You're acting as the design review board ... and that's an important purpose today," Hodges said. Multiple members agreed the proposed addition met the design criteria as interpreted by staff and legal counsel.

After discussion about visibility from the street, materials and reasonable flexibility on proportions of brick versus fiber-cement siding, a board member moved to approve the application "based on the design criteria and staff recommendation." The motion was seconded and the board voted in favor by roll call: Hawkins — Aye; Johnson — Aye; Niles — Aye; Hale — Aye; Jernigan — Aye. The board chair declared the motion passed 5-0.

The board and staff flagged several follow-up items: (1) a recommendation to review and clarify the town’s LDR language on lot coverage, site-plan approval and the timing of permit issuance; (2) an acknowledgment that the contractor had obtained a foundation-only permit under the Florida Building Code and that framing/roofing inspections remain part of the building-permit sequence; and (3) a reminder that the design-review approval applies to the criteria the board reviewed (exterior appearance, roof and wall treatments, and materials/colors) and does not change other permitting requirements.

No members of the public spoke on the item at the meeting. The board scheduled routine future business and noted the next regular meeting date on the agenda. Votes at a glance: DRB-9-2024, attached garage at 645 Winfield Drive — Approved 5-0 (based on staff recommendation and section 2.05.19(f) paragraphs 1–3).