/
     
3-19-13 Minutes of the March 19, 2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board J3 IA ! 6 r: 4JRI> MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD March 19, 2013 1. CALL TO ORDER.-6:03pm Chair Brea Paul verified the presence of a quorum with the attendance of Kelly Elmore, Kirk Hansen, Harley Parkes, Brea Paul, Sylvia Simmons and Patrick Stratton. The meeting was called to order at 6:03pm. Also present were NS Mayport Liaison and ex-officio board member Matt Schellhorn, Principal Planner Erika Hall, and Building and Zoning Director Michael Griffin. Board member Jason Burgess was absent. 2. ADOPTION OF MEETING MINUTES-FEBRUARY 19,2013. Ms. Paul called for a motion to approve the minutes of the February 19, 2013 regular meeting. Mr. Hansen moved that minutes be approved as written. Mr. Stratton seconded the motion and it carried by a vote of 6-0. 3. OLD BUSINESS.None. 4. NEW BUSINESS. A. ZVAR-13-00100045, 356 10th Street(Per Obf Ezelius,owner) Request for variance from Section 24-151(b)(1)4 reducing the required rear yard setback for a detached one-story garage exceeding six hundred(600)square feet in area,from twenty(20)feet to five(5)feet. Staff Ms. Hall presented a brief history of the property. She stated that Report the applicant has requested to construct an eight hundred seventy- five (875) square foot single-story detached garage. Per the provisions of Section 24-151(b)(1)(d), such a single-story detached garage exceeding six hundred (600) square feet in area must comply with the applicable setbacks as established for the principal structure. Ms. Hall explained that the subject property is zoned as Residential Single-Family (RS-2), which requires a twenty (20) foot rear yard setback. Ms. Hall said the character of the existing structure, which is less than sixteen hundred (1,600) square feet in area and lacks adequate storage, having neither a garage nor a carport nor an attic, is the reason the applicant has requested to construct a garage exceeding six hundred (600) square feet. However, adverse impacts to at least one and possibly two large oak trees located to Page 1 of 6 Minutes of the March 19, 2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board the south of the principal structure prevent the applicant from constructing the proposed garage in compliance with the required rear yard setback of twenty (20) feet. Ms. Simmons asked had adjacent property owners been notified of the variance request, and if so, had staff heard of any objections. Ms. Hall replied that in addition to a legal notice published in The Beaches Leader and a sign posted on-site, notice was mailed to all property owners within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property. She said that she had received no statements of objection to the proposal. Applicant Property owner Per Olof Ezelius addressed the Board. He Comment explained that he and his wife had recently purchased the property after renting it for three (3) years. He said the house is very functional for the most part, but it lacks much-needed storage space and needs some minor reconfigurations. One such reconfiguration would be the removal of the laundry area from the existing kitchen and relocation to the utility area of the proposed garage. Mr. Ezelius said he had considered several design options, including plans that provided more space, but those would be detrimental to the trees. He said he felt the current proposal suited his needs, and best served his neighbors, the neighborhood and the environment. He asked if any Board members had reservations about granting the variance, to please defer the decision to the next meeting and take the time to visit the site. Ms. Paul asked Board members if anyone had questions for Mr. Ezelius. Both Mr. Hansen and Ms. Simmons declared ex parte communications with an adjacent property owner during their site visits. Mr. Elmore noted that the existing structure is located approximately nine (9) feet further from the front property line than is required. He asked the applicant if he had considered renovations to the existing structure such that the larger detached garage would not be required. Mr. Ezelius replied that the interior layout of the house is functional, and the desire is to upgrade without drastically altering the layout. He said they had considered demolishing the existing structure and rebuilding, but the trees would still be an issue. Mr. Hansen recommended turning the garage ninety (90) degrees, Page 2 of 6 Minutes of the March 19,2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board aligning it with and attaching it to the principal structure, noting the addition of such an attached garage would meet the required rear yard setback of twenty (20) feet. However, Ms. Paul questioned whether such a configuration would still impact the oak tree located nearest the west property line. Mr. Stratton asked if the applicant was attempting to save both oaks, to which Mr. Ezelius replied yes, noting that the existing driveway would have to meander around the western tree. [At the applicant's request, a copy of his opening statement is attached to these minutes.] Public Jim Thoermer (365 10th Street) said he lived across the street, and Comment he assured the Board that the applicant's primary concern was protection of the trees. He explained that there had been significant impact to the 10th Street tree canopy over the previous two years, as several lots had undergone redevelopment and JEA had removed a number of trees encroaching into the buffer around power lines. He said that the applicant had given careful consideration to the potential impact on the two oaks, as well as the neighbors and the neighborhood, and he recommended that the Board approve the variance. Richard Reichler (2025 Beach Avenue) recommended that the Board deny this request because it did not meet the grounds for approval of a variance. He stated that the property owners and their successors would later have the right to replace the existing structure and/or remove the trees. Thus the hardship would disappear, but the variance would last forever. Chris Lambertson (357 12th Street) expressed concern that approval of this request would set a precedent for everything that comes afterwards. He strongly suggested the recording of specific rationale for approval, if approved, so as to not open the door to reconsider all rear yard setbacks. Board Mr. Elmore extolled the value of the tree canopy, but emphasized Discussion that the Board should not confuse precedent with emotion over trees. He said that he believed there is enough available land to allow the reconfiguration of the existing structure and addition of a compliant garage. However, he cautioned no matter what is done to the site, the trees will be impacted, whether by equipment or development. He explained that any footings would impact anchor Page 3 of 6 Minutes of the March 19,2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board roots and feeder roots. Mr. Parkes agreed with Mr. Elmore, stating there appears to be considerable potential to construct a six hundred (600) square foot detached garage, as well as a small addition on the back of the house, between the trees and compliant with setbacks. He further questioned the rationale of placing the laundry in the proposed detached garage structure, some thirty (30) feet from the principal structure. Mr. Stratton concurred that saving trees is admirable, but he advised the applicant to construct a compliant six hundred (600) square foot garage, and if additional space is still needed, to renovate the principal structure. Ms. Simmons noted that back yards often consist of wasted space, and she asked staff to provide history regarding this provision. Ms. Hall replied that the lot was originally developed in 1975, at which time the 1959 Zoning Code was still in effect. Under the 1959 Zoning Code, detached single-story garage accessory structures could be constructed up to a maximum footprint of twelve (12) percent of the total lot area and located a minimum of five (5) feet from rear and side property lines. The subject property, which measures six thousand five hundred (6,500) square feet in area, would have accommodated a seven hundred eighty (780) square foot garage. However, the 1959 Zoning Code was repealed and replaced by the 1982 Zoning Code, which limited accessory structures to six hundred (600) square feet in area. This provision was carried forth when the 1982 Zoning Code was repealed and replaced by the 2002 Zoning Code. When the 2002 Zoning Code was amended in December 2003, the setback for single-story detached garages, still limited to six hundred (600) square feet in area and fifteen (15) feet in height, was increased to a ten (10) foot rear yard setback. Further, a provision for a two-story detached garage, limited to a six hundred (600) square feet footprint and twenty-five (25) feet in height, was included, with a minimum rear yard setback of fifteen (15) feet. When the 2002 Zoning Code was again amended in March 2010, the minimum rear yard setbacks for the detached single- and two-story garage accessories were revised to five (5) and ten (10)feet, respectively. Mr. Elmore reiterated that the Board needed to remove the trees from the equation and focus on the true matter of the accessory structure size and location. Ms. Paul agreed, stating she would Page 4 of 6 Minutes of the March 19, 2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board hate to see preservation of the trees used as justification of the variance, and then find that the trees had been removed, whether intentionally or not. Mr. Stratton asked Mr. Ezelius what would be the issue with constructing a six hundred (600) square foot detached garage and a two hundred seventy-five (275) square foot addition to the principal structure. Mr. Ezelius replied that the current configuration of the existing structure — particularly the roof line — does not lend to easy modification. He said the desire for additional ground-level space was to accommodate storage and to relocate the laundry from the kitchen. Mr. Elmore emphasized that there are alternatives providing greater area which comply with the code. Mr. Ezelius replied that he was aware that he could build up to twelve hundred (1,200) square feet with a two-story detached garage, but that option did not resolve the problem of needed space on the ground-level. Mr. Hansen reviewed the proposal and estimated that removal of the work benches shown on the plan would still result in a compliant two-car garage with adequate space for a laundry area. He asked Mr. Parkes the depth of a standard two-car garage, to which Mr. Parkes replied a 24' x 24' garage, would comfortably accommodate two cars, a washer, dryer and air conditioning unit. Mr. Ezelius commented that the additional space was needed to accommodate his hobby. Mr. Parkes stated that his primary concern was setting precedent, noting that in all the time he had been on the Board, he could not recall ever approving a variance to the rear yard setback requirement. He continued, stating that the job of the Board is to defend the Code as written, and grant variances only when the rationale meets the specific standards outlined in Section 24-64. Mr. Elmore agreed, stating that this request is based upon a self- imposed hardship. He emphasized that the Board cannot validate the request because there are code-compliant alternatives available to the applicant. Mr. Stratton added that while he applauded the applicant's attempt to protect the trees, the Board did not have the authority to randomly grant variances without valid grounds for approval. Motion Mr. Parkes moved that the Community Development Board deny ZVAR-13-00100045, request for a variance from Section 24- Page 5 of 6 Minutes of the March 19, 2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board 151(b)(1)d, reducing the required rear yard setback for a detached garage exceeding six hundred (600) square feet in area from twenty (20) feet to five (5) feet, finding that trees do not constitute exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area; finding that the property does not suffer the onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after construction of improvements upon the property; and finding that the request is based upon a self-created hardship, in that the property owner was aware that the property did not meet his needs when he purchased the property in December 2012, and the applicant now seeks relief beyond reasonable use, solely for personal comfort or convenience. Mr. Elmore seconded the motion and it passed unanimously, 6-0. 5. REPORTS. None. 6. ADJOURNMENT- 7:18 PM 0 3i2rtycok, Brea Paul, Chair go/4)61a° Attest Page 6 of 6 Rommingimmimmak Ezelius Opening Statement March 19,2013 CDB meeting Variance Meeting Talking Points 1. We appreciate your consideration reviewing our Proposed Garage Project. I never had the pleasure to meet anyone of you on the Board and this is totally new experience for me. 2. My wife Marita and I have spent significant time reviewing various building options over an extended period of time before we settled on the proposed plan that is in front of you.We have tried to provide as much detail in our Variance application as possible and I am mainly here to answer any questions you may have. Before doing so I would like to make a few additional comments: A. We believe we have proposed the most sensible plan after having considered all facts.The proposed plan is best for the neighborhood, neighbors and environment. Other building options that would not require a Variance would be worse on all three points. We can't find a single reasonable argument why our proposal could not be approved. B. The driveway is not going to be implemented as shown on the site plan. For example,that Driveway conflicts with one of the live Oaks and we will not have a driveway going to the Utility Room.The architect showed a sample driveway for the purpose of calculating lot coverage only. C. If any of you are for whatever reason hesitant to approving our plan and at the same have not visited and reviewed our backyard we wish for the Board to first make an on-site review and postpone the decision to the April meeting.We wish to avoid that decision to become a "paper or desk" like decision without having seen our back yard. D. I also have the full size blue prints with me should you wish to see them. I am open for questions.