Loading...
July 15, 2014 SIGNED MINUTESMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD July 15,2014 1. CALL TO ORDER. - 6:00 pm Chair Brea Paul verified that all board members are present with the exception of Kirk Hansen. The meeting was called to order at 6:OOpm. Also present was Building and Zoning Director, Jeremy Hubsch; Zoning Technician, Derek Reeves; Recording Secretary Jenny Walker, and representing the firm Kopelousos, Bradley & Garrison, P.A. was Mr. Rob Bradley. 2. ADOPTION OF MEETING MINUTES - June 17, 2014. Brea Paul called for a motion to approve the minutes of the June 17, 2014 regular meeting. Mr. Elmore made a motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Parkes seconded the motion and it carried by a vote of 5- 0. 3. OLD BUSINESS. None. 4. NEW BUSINESS. Staff Report A. ZVAR- 14- 00100020(PUBLIC HEARING)- Deferred till August 19th 152 3rd Street (Allison Hillis) Request for zoning variance as permitted by Section 24 -64 for a reduction of setbacks as required by Section 24 -106 (e) (1). B. ZVAR 14- 00100025(PUBLIC HEARING) 290 Beach Ave (Andrew Thomas Pitler) Request for zoning variance as permitted by Section 24 -64 for a reduction of setbacks as required by Section 24 -106 (e) (1). Jeremy Hubsch states that the applicant recently purchased a property in the RS -2 zoning district that is located on a through lot between Ocean Boulevard and Beach Avenue. The property has a 1200 square foot single story home that was constructed in approximately 1940 and a two story garage apartment. The home fronts along Beach Avenue, while the garage apartment fronts along Ocean Boulevard. The applicant would like to preserve as much of the original single family home as possible while creating additional living space to the property by adding a second story. The house is 8.5 feet from the property line along Beach Avenue. The requested variance is seeking to allow the applicant to add a second story above the existing home, beginning at a point 10 feet from the Beach Avenue property line. The required setback along Beach Avenue is 20 feet. Adding additional space within the required setback (even vertically) is not allowed by code and requires a variance. Applicant Comment Section 24 -85 (c) (1) states, "No nonconforming structure shall be expanded or enlarged unless such expansion or enlargement complies with the terms of this section and other applicable provisions, of this chapter, including building setbacks, or unless a variance has been obtained from the community development board." This means that per code, the applicant can only expand or enlarge the home at the point where the current setbacks start. The applicant is able to expand the structure vertically at the point where the setbacks start. In this instance, it would mean a 2nd floor addition would need to be setback 20 feet from the Beach Avenue property line by code. Jeremy discussed the grounds for approval and denial. Mark Major, 515 3rd St., Neptune Beach. He states that it is not feasible to add a second story 20 feet back and maintain the historical and architectural character of the existing house, it would basically destroy it. Jeremy mentioned that other nonconformities in the area cannot be grounds for approving the variance, however the Comprehensive Plan policy states that maintaining the architectural character of old Atlantic Beach is one of the policies of the City. The architectural character of this area is very much determined by minimal setbacks to the right of way. He states that what they are proposing to do is simply go up within the existing footprint of the historic structure. The design will be keeping with the existing cottage design. This is an existing single story cottage surrounded by two story structures. They are planning on converting it from a rental property into a fully functional single family residence. Next Andy Pitler, 277 Beach Avenue, spoke. He is the owner of the property. He states this does seem to be within the code related to garage structures, the concept of being able to expand nonconforming structures in a vertical manner using the existing footprint and they would like to use that as additional justification for adding a second story. Kelly Elmore states that he has had exparte communication with the owner and the architect. Public Comment None. Board Discussion Kelly Elmore started the discussion. He states that there really does need to be an overlay for Beach Avenue based on the number of cases similar to this one coming before the board, and he realizes that this goes beyond the case they are discussing tonite, but they keep coming back with very difficult decisions that a lot of the language that's set up flies in the face of what the character of what Beach Avenue is which is a tighter to the right of way buildings and it gives it its' charm and I feel that what they are trying to do here is consistent with that charm. That is what makes Beach Ave so unique. It has a 25ft right of way and it is a big pedestrian corridor in our community and it has special needs and uses different then conventional streets have and yet we don't have anything in place for it. Brea agrees with Mr. Elmore and states that rather than saying what the board doesn't want, they should define what they do want. She also agrees the board needs to have a discussion regarding an overlay. She believes we need to preserve the character of Beach Ave. Patrick Stratton states that he agrees with Kelly, but also the board is not the "aesthetics" board to determine what looks good and what doesn't look good, nor what is good use of land and what is not good use of land. How would you feel if every house down Beach Ave threw a second story addition on inside the 20ft setbacks? So now you would be going down a tunnel. How will we handle it if we get 10 more in a row that want to put on 2nd stories? If we approve this one tonite and then disapprove one in the future, the City will get sued. Sylvia states the board needs to make their decision tonite based on the code and on the reasons given to either approve or disapprove, but this is not the time nor the place to be discussing the need for a Beach Ave overlay. She would like to bring the discussion back to this variance. She states that this does not meet code. She believes the property is an eyesore and not of historical nor architectural significance. The people who bought these two lots took a single lot and divided them knew what they were getting, they were getting a 50' wide lot by 130' deep. She states that this is a doable, buildable lot without a variance. Harley agrees with Sylvia in that this solution does not preserve the architectural significance at all. If they built the second story further back then they could preserve the architecture and the character from the street. He feels there are several other solutions. Our job here is to enforce the code. Mr. Pitler requested that the board defer their decision until the City Commission makes their decision regarding through lots. Motion Mr. Parkes makes a motion to recommend denial of ZVAR- 14- 00100025. Mr. Stratton seconded it. All were in favor and motion carried. Staff Report C. ZVAR- 14- 00100026(PUBLIC HEARING) 1251 Selva Marina Circle (Linda Dunlap) Request for zoning variance as permitted by Section 24 -64 for a reduction of lot width at the building restriction line as required by Section 24 -256 (a). Derek Reeves, Zoning Technician introduced himself. He stated this is a request to split a lot in Selva Marina, Unit 1, into two buildable lots. Specifically, there is an issue of the lot with at the building restriction line. This property is in the RS -L zoning district. Section 24 -104 requires a lot depth and width of 100 feet and minimum of 10,000 square feet for all new lots in the RS -L zoning district. Applicant Comment Public Comment The proposed property division splits the property into two lots, where both lots have direct access to Selva Marina Circle. The proposed lots meet the required 100 feet of depth and width, and greatly exceed the minimum 10,000 square feet, as lot one is over 20,000 square feet and lot two is over 17,000 square feet. Each proposed lot also has adequate room for a driveway that would meet impervious surface regulations. As part of the original plat of Selva Marina Unit 1, this property was platted with a 40 foot building restriction line, (BRL). Lot two meets the required 75 feet of width at the BRL, but lot one only has 65 feet of width at the BRL, which is 10 feet less than required. This is the largest lot in Selva Marina Unit 1, by far the next closest lot in size is 80% of the size. 33 of the 47 lots in Selva Marina Unit 1, are smaller than the lot 1 split proposed. So over half of the lots in the existing neighborhood will be smaller than what is proposed here. More recently, the city made an effort to prevent future property divisions within Selva Marina after concers expressed by the public and City Commission by creating the RS -L zoning classification in 2006. Prior to the creation of the RS -L zoning district, properties in this area were only required to have 75 feet of width and 7,500 square feet. After a few property divisions, including one that was especially controversial, the community expressed concern over the loss of the large lot character of the neighborhood. That code was then changed to the current lot size of 10,000 square feet and 100 feet of lot width. This made is so that a lot now needs at least 20,000 square feet to be divided, where it had been 15,000 square feet previously. The proposed lot split is consistent with lot sizes in the RS -L zoning district, and is necessary due to an irregular shaped lot, which does not have enough lot width at the BRL to meet a specific code provision. Peter Coalson introduced himself on behalf of Linda Dunlap. Ms. Dunlap wishes to divide the property for construction of two homes. Mr. Coalson stated that he is very impressed with our new department. Peter says what we have is a lot that is twice the size requirements in one lot and nearly that in the other. We would like to get around this restriction caused by the culdesac. Beatrice Musser of 1420 Seminole Road was up first. She has lived at this address since 1962. She is against splitting this lot and anymore lots in Selva Marina. She states that the original conception of Selva Marina was large lots and lots of big shady trees and that's what prompted her to want to settle in Atlantic Beach. Next up was Maria Wilkes, 1320 East Coast Drive. Our house is right behind the current residence. Unit 1 of Selva is very unique and there are not many lots that big and that is why they moved from Ponte Vedra to Selva because of the uniqueness and because of the size and shapes of the lots and feels we should keep the integrity of the original lots. You shouldn't be able to use the argument of because this house sits on a culdesac it is okay to split. Board Comment Motion Additional Public Comment Harley Parkes stated that if you moved the BRL back 10 or 20 fee in Lot 1 where it would have a 75' width wouldn't this solve the issue? Mr. Elmore stated that yes, that would solve it. Derek did state that there would have to be a condition to either demo a portion of the structure to meet the setbacks or demo the entire structure. Mr. Stratton questioned us working around the codes, especially 24 -256 and 24- 104. Mr. Elmore states that this is a colossal lot and even with splitting the lot it meets all the requirements of what 24 -104 stipulated. Regarding 24 -256 Mr. Elmore says you would just move the BRL back deeper to meet the 75'. Sylvia states that the shape of this lot is the only reason the applicant needed to apply, otherwise they could just split the lot without the boards' permission. It actually could have been divided into 3 lots based on the square footage of the lot. Brea feels like this is just a mere formality and that with a pie shaped lot you would want to push the house back in the lot anyways. Sylvia states if the board grants the variance they are granting it based on exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area. Harley makes a motion to approve the Zoning Variance with the condition that the building restriction line be located at the point that complies with the width requirement of the existing ordinance, or 75' and that the plat reflect that. The other condition will require that the existing house on site must meet all the required setbacks, which would require total demolition. Kelly Elmore seconded and all were in favor. Rich Reichler of 2025 Beach Avenue states that he came to talk about 152 3`d Street, he states he is at a loss at what the board expects to achieve by taking this issue to the commission, the only possible outcome that he sees is basically humiliation for the members of this board. I'm saying this because, one, this law was recommended by you all, the law that's written is only one sentence long, so it is difficult to read something into the way it was written, thirdly, as it was written, there was one workshop and then an initial reading of this law, at the commission full public hearing, then there was an additional workshop and a final reading of the law as it is now written. The commission voted for it unanimously with no opposition from the community and I just don't understand how you can come back at some later time and say oh, well, we wanted, its our impression that the law was not written as intended by this board, since you never did provide any intention of the law to the commission, you didn't ask for it and neither did the commission, nobody even asked Mr. Griffin his intention of the law or even why he was bringing this to the commission, nor mention any positive nor negative affects this law would have. What is it that you expect to achieve by going in front of the commission and I assume asking of what their intention was when they passed the law. Next Mr. Chris Jorgenson from 3rd St.. He states that before the meeting he spoke to Jeremy and criticized the quality of the ground level photos and now he is totally embarrassed and humiliated that right off the bat tonite Jeremy shows high quality, precisely what I was talking about photographs. He states he wishes all the boards would present the reasons for approval and denial. 5. Reports. No new reports. 6. Adjournment. Adjoit rnment at 7:50.