2001-01-16 (meeting minutes) v . ....
•
• AMENDED AGENDA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
January 16, 2001
7:00 p.m.
1. Call to Order
2. Approval of Minutes of Meeting of December 19, 2000
3. Recognition of Visitors
4. Old Business
None.
5. New Business
a. Application for Variance filed by Michael Patterson to park a boat and trailer in
driveway at 887 Stock Street.
IIIb. Application for Variance filed by Jim and Monica Stranahan to reduce the rear
and side yard setbacks to construct a home on a non-conforming lot located at
1620 Beach Avenue.
c. Discussion of Yelvington Variance.
d. Election of Officers
6. Reports and Announcements
4
7. Adjournment
If any person decides to appeal any decision made by the Community Development Board at the
above meeting, he will need a record of the proceedings, and for such purpose, may need to
• ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings be made, which record shall include the
testimony and evidence upon which appeal is to be based.
tsL
MINUTES OF MEETING OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
• January 16, 2001
A regular meeting of the Community Development Board was held Tuesday,January 16,2001,in the
City Hall Commission Chambers. Present were Chairman Don Wolfson, Craig Burkhart, Robert
Frohwein, Karl Grunewald, Samuel Jacobson, Mary Walker, Community Development Director George
Worley, II, and Recording Secretary Susan Dunham.
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
Mr.Wolfson introduced Mr. Karl Grunewald as the new member of the Board.
2. Approval of Minutes of Meeting of December 19,2000
A motion was made by Mr. Frohwein, seconded by Mrs. Walker and unanimously carried to approve the
Minutes of the Community Development Board meeting of December 19, 2000.
3. Recognition of Visitors
None.
4. Old Business
None.
5. New Business
a. Application for Variance filed by Michael Patterson to park a boat and trailer in driveway at
• 887 Stock Street.
Mr. Patterson was not in attendance so this agenda item was moved to later in the meeting.
b. Application for Variance filed by Jim and Monica Stranahan to reduce the rear and side yard
setbacks to construct a home on a non-conforming lot located at 1625 Beach Avenue.
Mr.Worley advised the Board that the zoning classification of this property is RS-2, residential
single-family.
Mr. Stranahan introduced himself to the Board and advised that he would like to remodel the current
building, which houses three to four apartments and a bomb shelter, into one single family home. Mr.
Stranahan advised that the variance request is to allow him to use the current foundation to avoid
digging out and filling in the lot. In addition, Mr. Stranahan stated that he included a copy of the
drawing of a house which is of the type of home he would like to build on the lot. Mr. Stranahan
clarified that the variance request is to reduce the side yard setbacks to keep the home where it is
currently located. Mr. Stranahan also advised that the deck is on the street property line and he would
be moving the house back from the street approximately ten feet. Mr. Brian Cote introduced himself
as the architect for this project.
Ms. Walker asked Mr. Worley how this home became three units. Mr. Worley advised that at the
time that this area was annexed into Atlantic Beach,this building housed in excess of five units and
has fluctuated as to the number of units in the last several years. Mr. Worley stated that when this
area was annexed into Atlantic Beach,certain lots were zoned at a higher multi-family duplex RG-1.
However,this particular lot was zoned RS-2 and most of the block that the lot is located in is zoned
• RS-2.
Minutes of Community Development Board
January 16, 2001
Page 2
• Mr. Grunwald confirmed with the applicant that the height of the building would remain as it is.
Further discussion was held with regard to the height of the building in relation to the street level. It
was determined that the top of the proposed home would be 43 feet from the existing street level. Mr.
Stranahan confirmed that the garage would be below ground with three habitable floors.
Mr.Worley discussed the provision in the Code under Grade, Calculated Average that is used to
determine the elevation of a lot from which to measure building height. That point is an average
elevation of the site calculated prior to excavation, fill or land balancing. Mr. Worley stated that this
was written with the intent of taking into account the construction that was anticipated along the
oceanfront at the north end of the beach where there are considerable dunes or low spots. The idea
was to create an average height of buildings along the coastline using a calculated average grade.
From that point,the building height measurement cannot exceed 35 feet. There was a question with
regard to existing lots that are excavated, filled or land balanced previous to construction. Even more
of a question with regard to a situation such as this where the existing foundation will be incorporated
or used by the proposed new building. Mr. Worley stated that in these cases, in the past,the Board
has taken the elevation of the site as it has been graded, in other words, after it has been affected by
the previous development, and from that point,measured the 35 feet. This case is a little unusual
because the elevation is somewhat higher than street level with a retaining wall. Mr.Worley advised
that if calculated average grade is used, it does not apply to a lot that has already been developed.
Mr. Worley clarified that if you measured from the existing grade using the foundation of the existing
house,the proposed house would be approximately 35 feet. Mr. Jacobson asked Mr. Worley that if a
horizontal plane were put on the top of the proposed structure,then would the plane be higher or
lower than the current structures? Mr.Worley responded that he believed it would be approximately
the same elevation.
110
Mr. Frohwein discussed the tremendous amount of square footage that is proposed to be placed on
this lot. He stated that it appears the applicant is adding approximately 25%more structure. Mr.
Frohwein also noted that there is virtually no off-street parking. Mr. Stranahan stated that the whole
house would be moved back which will allow for parking.
Mr. Wolfson discussed with the applicant the possibility of moving the northwest side yard setback to
five feet. Mr. Cote stated that the foundation is below grade an additional nine feet at that point and
the foundation is built as a bomb shelter,with walls that are nine inches thick. Mr.Wolfson asked if
architecturally and from an engineering perspective,the applicant could move that setback without
destruction of that portion of the building. Mr. Cote responded that this would increase the cost of
building the home.
Mr. Jacobson asked the applicant if the encroachment would be the same or worse on the north. Mr.
Stranahan advised that it would be the same but it will not come as close to the street. Mr.Wolfson
stated that the pitch of the proposed building would not exceed the pitch of the present building.
However,he stated that there would be a significant increase to the volume or the mass of the
building.
Mrs. Walker asked Mr. Cote if he could use the existing foundation but reduce the footprint? Mr.
Cote responded that the only way to make it smaller would be to demolish it and start over because
the current foundation sits approximately a foot to a foot-and-a-half above grade. Mr. Frohwein
asked if it would be possible to demolish the foundation to just below grade level?
Mr. Jacobson asked Mr. Stranahan that if he did that,how badly would that compromise the living
space of the house? Mr. Cote advised that the square feet of the current building is 3800 square feet
•
Minutes of Community Development Board
January 16, 2001
Page 3
• of air-conditioned space and the proposed building would be the exact same square footage. Mr.
Wolfson stated that the new residence will not be wider than what is currently there but it will be
much higher
Mr.Wolfson moved to deny the variance request. Mary Walker seconded the motion.
Mr.Wolfson stated that he believes Mr. Stranahan and his wife can get the structure they want even
with an adjustment to the north side yard setback. In addition, Mr. Wolfson advised that currently, in
case of fire,there is no way to get emergency equipment through the north side yard. He said that
there is also an extreme hazard and danger of fire spreading from one structure to another.
Mrs. Walker expressed that through workshops with the Commission,the Board as a whole agreed
that if something happens to non-conforming buildings,when people rebuild,they should be rebuilt
within code. Mrs. Walker stated that she sees a conflict by allowing someone to purposely tear down
and then rebuild on a non-conforming lot but with the same reduced setbacks. Mrs.Walker said that
she appreciates the fact that it may cost more to meet the required setbacks; however, it is just too
close and proposes a safety hazard.
Mr. Grunwald discussed a previous fire at this location and stated that the neighbor to the east who
stated that the height of the proposed building does not bother her.
Mr. Frohwein stated that he spoke to the neighbor on the south and he also gave Mr. Stranahan good
reviews. With regard to the side yard setbacks, 15 feet are required but he recognizes that this is a
1111/ substandard lot. Mr. Frohwein stated that he thinks that it would be a reasonable position for this
Board to take to decrease the side yard setbacks by one-third,which would reduce them to 10 feet,
hopefully five feet on each side. In addition, it seems reasonable to reduce the front and rear setbacks
by 50 percent to allow for 10-foot front and rear minimum setbacks.
Mr. Stranahan requested that the Board defer his application.
Mr. Wolfson moved to withdraw his motion. Mr. Burkhart seconded the motion,which passed
by unanimous vote.
a. Application for Variance filed by Michael Patterson to park a boat and trailer in driveway at
887 Stock Street.
Mr. Mike Patterson of 887 Stock Street, Atlantic Beach, introduced himself to the Board. Mr.
Patterson stated that he is requesting a zoning variance to park his 22-foot boat in his driveway. Mr.
Patterson stated that the way the house is built, it is impossible to park the boat anywhere else but his
driveway. Mr. Patterson informed the Board that he owns the Jacksonville Fisherman magazine and
the boat is named the same. The vessel was built in 1999, it is not an eyesore and all stickers,tags,
etc.,are current.
Mr.Wolfson asked Mr.Worley if a variance is a permanent change on the land. Mr. Worley stated
that it was correct. Mr.Worley clarified that if the Board grants a variance to allow construction of
something permanent, it will run with the land. If the Board grants a temporary parking variance, it
can be attached to an individual or a time limit can be established. Mr.Wolfson stated that the Board
is going through revisions to this chapter in the Code. He said that Mr. Patterson has a commercial
vehicle on his lot and we are addressing the use of commercial vehicles limiting them to one per
residence. Mr.Worley agreed that this boat does constitute a commercial vehicle.
Minutes of Community Development Board
January 16, 2001
Page 4
Mr. Worley stated that the current problem is that the boat is listed as a recreational vehicle and
cannot be parked in the front 20-foot setback. Mr. Patterson advised that he spoke with his neighbors
and they are not opposed to the boat being parked on the lot.
Mr. Wolfson asked Mr. Grunwald if in his experience in Code Enforcement, did he run across this
type of problem frequently. Mr. Grunwald responded that he did quite often and in particular,this
location. Mr. Grunwald also added that this is not just an appearance issue but a safety issue.
Children play around recreational vehicles and boats and could possibly run out from behind a vehicle
into traffic.
Mr. Patterson stated that the boat is actually eight or ten feet back from the setback and his children
and the neighborhood children know that they are not allowed to play around the boat. In addition,
Mr. Patterson stated that other neighbors are parking their boats on their lots.
Mr. Frohwein moved to deny the variance. Mr. Burkhart seconded the motion,which passed
by unanimous vote.
c. Discussion of Yelvington Variance.
Mr. Worley advised the Board that he placed this item on the agenda at the request of the Chairman.
Mr. Worley stated that he believes that the Board members would benefit by establishing another
workshop to discuss the criteria and decision-making that the ordinance provides. This workshop will
not be to discuss philosophy but a technical walk-through of the Code and what factors the Board
members should take into consideration in the decision-making process.
111
Mr. Wolfson expressed his concern that Ms.Yelvingtonagreed at the meetingthat herrequest was
g�
not the minimum necessary and came to the next meeting with new plans. Mr. Wolfson stated that
the Board nullified the guidelines set forth in the Ordinance by opting to approve the original request.
Mr. Wolfson advised that it is very important for members of this Board to understand the
responsibilities and significance of its actions;therefore,he would like to set up a workshop for the
new members but would encourage all members to attend.
The Board scheduled the workshop for Tuesday, February 20, at 5:30 p.m.
d. Election of Officers.
Mr. Burkhart moved to nominate the existing officers for additional terms. Mrs. Walker
seconded the motion,which passed by unanimous vote.
Mr.Wolfson stated that he was honored to be re-nominated.
6. Reports and Announcements
Mrs. Walker praised Susan Dunham for her work on preparing the Minutes for the Board.
•
Minutes of Community Development Board
January 16, 2001
Page 5
• 7. Adjournment
There being no other business or discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
SIGNED " 416-& oLO. 1111. : -'
ATTEST
O
•