Loading...
2003-06-17 (meeting minutes) vAGE1`~TDA revised COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACI3 Tuesday, June 17, 2003 at 7:00 p.m.. City Hall Commission Chambers, 500 Seminole Road 1. Call to order and pledge of allegiance. 2. Approval of Minutes of the meetings of May 20, 2003. 3. Recognition of Visitors. Presentation and discussion of proposed Redevelopment Plan and Mayport Community Redevelopment Area. (Tl:is item »:icst be conti~:fired to the July meeting.) 4. Old Business. a. ZVAR-2003-09, Dorothy Papazian. Request for a Variance from Section 24- 105 (e) (1) to reduce the required twenty (20) foot front yard to fourteen-and-a- half (14.5) feet and also to reduce the required fifteen (15) foot street side setback on a corner lot to twelve (12) feet to allow for the construction of a new residence, for property within the RS-2 Zoning District and located at 587 Beach Avenue. (Tl:is item is contincced from tl:e ~tiltty meeting, and the applicant has advised staff that she wishes to continue the item ulrtil the July f~: eetijag.) b. ZVAR-2003-05, Debra G. Wilkins. Request for a Variance from Section 24- 106 (e) (2) to reduce the required twenty (20) foot rear yard to fifteen (15} feet to allow a screened enclosure with a solid roof to be constructed over an existing concrete patio, for property within the RG-lA Zoning District and located at 1395 Main Street. (This item is continued from the April and Nlay meetings.) 5. New Business. a. UBE-2003-01, William Dukes. Request for aUse-by-Exception to allow automotive repair and service in association with an existing used car lot (Neptune Auto Sales, Inc.) for property within the Commercial General (CG) Zoning District and located at 880 Mayport Road. b. ZVAR-2003-10, Raymond A. and Audrey R. Lackie. Request for a Variance from Section 24-106 (e) (2) to reduce the required twenty (20) foot rear yard to eight (8) feet to allow for athree-story addition to the rear of an existing residence, for property within the RG-1 Zoning District and located at 645 Ocean Boulevard. c. ZVAR-2003-11~, David C. Kirsten. Request for a Variance from Section 24- 157 (c) to allow asix-foot fence to replace an existing six-foot fence in the street side yard on a corner lot within the RS-2 Z oning D istrict and located a t 394 Ninth Street. d. ZVAR-2003-12, Peter G. Durante. Request for a Variance from Section 24-105 (e) (1) and (2) to reduce the required 20-foot rear and front yards to 15 feet to allow for an addition to the rear of the existing residence and to allow an exterior spiral staircase and an cantilevered open balcony to encroach into the front y and a distance of 5 ~ feet within the RS-2 Zoning District and located at 417 Ocean Boulevard. (Tlie applicant leas requested that this item be continued until the July meeting.) e. Discussion and consideration of proposed general revisions to Chapter 24. 6. Adjournment. All information related to these applications and full legal descriptions for the subject properties are available for review at the City of Atlantic Beach Planning and Zoning Department located at 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, Florida. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Community Development Board with respect to any matter considered at the meeting, he or she will need a record of the proceedings, and f or s uch p urpose, m ay n eed t o e nsure t hat a v erbatim r ecord of t he proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. Notice to persons needing special accommodations and to all hearing impaired persons: In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons needing special accommodation to participate in this proceeding should contaEt the City of Atlantic Beach (904) 247-5800, 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233 not later than 5 days prior to the date of this meeting. 2 ` 11rIINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF COIVIIVIUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD June 17, 2003 A regular meeting of the Community Development Board was held on Tuesday, June 17, 2p03, in the City Hall Commission Chambers. Present were Chair Don Wolfson, Craig Burkhart, Lynn Drysdale, Robert Frohwein, Samuel Jacobson, Steve Jenkins, Mary Walker, Community Development Director Sonya Doerr and Recording Secretary Susan Dunham. 1. Call to Order. Intl ~P-}cd~e of Alle~i~nce The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes of the Meeting of May 20, 2003 Mr. Frohwein requested the following changes to Minutes of May 20, 2003 1) Page 3, paragraph three: That it be clarified that Mrs. Hector was required to demolish the enclosed garage; and 2) Page 7, paragraph one: That the recommendations of each board member with regard to term limits be included. A motion was made by 1VIr. Jenkins, seconded by Mr. Burkhart, and unanimously carfied to approve the Minutes of May 20, 2003, subject to clarification of the paragraph pertaining to the change in Mrs. Hector's request and to incorporate the written recommendations to the Commission with respect to terms. 3. Recognition of Visitors Presentation and discussion of proposed .Redevelopment Plan and Mayport Community Redevelopment Area. (This item must be continued to the July meeting) 4. Old Business a. -ZVAR-2003-09, Dorothy -Papazian. Rectuest-farm V-ar-fiance fr-om_ Section 24-105 (e) (1) to reduce the required twenty (20)-foot front yard to fourteen-and-a-half (14.5) feet and also to reduce the required fifteen (15) foot street side setback on a corner lot to twelve (12) feet to a}}ow for the construction of a new residence, for property within the RS-2 Zoning District and located at 587 Beach Avenue. (This item is continued from the May meeting, and the applicant has advised staff that she wishes to continue the item until the July meeting.) NIr. Wolfson advised that Mrs. Papazian had requested a continuance. Mrs. Papazian was in the audience and acknowledged that this was correct. Mr. Wolfson advised that with. respect to Item 5. d., the applicant had asked to reschedule this request. b. ZVAR-2003-05sDebra_ G. Wilkins. Request .for a Variance from Section 24-106 (e) (2) to reduce the required twenty (20) foot rear yard to fifteen (15) feet to allow a screened enclosure with a solid roof to be constructed over an existing concrete patio, for property within the RG-1_A_Zoning District and located at 1395 Main Street. (This item is continued from the April and May meetings.) Minutes of June 17, 2003 Regular~Lleeting of Community Development Board Page 2 Mr. Harold Wood introduced himself and his wife, Jean. He advised that the proposed enclosure would be steel frame with a tin roof to be used for protection from mosquitoes. Mrs. Jean Wood introduced herself and advised that her daughter is Debra Wood. She stated that when the plans were presented, they found out that they required a variance. Mrs. Wood stated that she did not understand why they needed a variance. Mr. Wolfson asked Mrs. Wood if they had asked questions of staff? She stated that she did not. Mr. Wolfson explained the zoning in RG-lA and why a variance was required for their req~}est. He explained that the rear setback of this lot was 20 feet and the patio is allowed to be within the 20 feet. However, he stated that by enclosing the patio, they would have to build within the setback requiring a variance. Mr. Wolfson asked the Woods to explain their hardship. Mrs. Wood stated that their hardship would be to enjoy the outdoors and the backyard. Mr. Wpod stated that there was amosquito-breeding pond a few houses away and he did not want to be a prisoner in his own home. Ms. Doerr advised that a screen structure without a solid roof is allowed, but once you put a solid roof on it, they would be subject to the setbacks. Mr. Wolfson suggested talking with staff to determine options that are available to them. Mr. Wood asked if he could build a tin gazebo. Ms. Doerr responded that it would have to meet the Building Code and be located at least five feet from the property line. NIr. Wood withdrew his request. 5. New Business -a. UBE-2003-O~i, William -Dukes_ Request for -a IIse-bv-Exceptian -to--allow -aiEt~motive repair and service in association-v~ith-an existing-used-ear iot-(Neytune-Auto-Sales,-Inc ;~ar property within the Commercial General (CG) Zoning District and located at 880 Mayport Road. Mr. William .Dukes .introduced .himself as the -President_-and Owner of Neptune Auto Sales. He stated that he received a letter from the Code -Enforcement OfFcer advising him that he was in violation of the Code and the original Use-by-Exception for repairing vehicles. Mr, Dukes advised that he went before the Community Development Board on' August 14, 1987; to apply for aUse-by-Exception: He further advised that after the request for an exception was submitted, he realized that he was going to perform repairs. Mr. Dukes said his attorney; Joe Glickstein, contacted the City of Atlantic Beach attorney who advised not to re-submit the application but to mention it at the meeting: He stated that he did this; and the request was approved seventeen years ago: NU. Dukes advised that he never received a copy of the Community Development Minutes and a page from the City Commission Minutes was missing. He further stated that he was applying for something that he thought he has been doing legally for almost seventeen years: Mr. Wolfson clarified that Mr. Dukes was asking far aUse-by-Exception to continue the work that he has been performing for the last seventeen years. Mr. Dukes advised that he has been operating with a license for auto sales under Neptune Auto Sales. He said that he has repaired vehicles for people who work for City Hall, city police and Fleet Landing. He stated that it was not a secret that he was repairing vehicles, even his sign says automotive repair. 1Llinutes of June 17, ?003 Regularl~Ieeting of Comnnrnity Development Board Page 3 Ms. Doerr advised that City staff hall researched City $les related to this property. She stated that Mr. Dukes was correct, that there was a page missing from the City Commission Minutes. She further stated that she has the Minutes of the Community Development Board of August 18, 1987, and the application was limited to a used car lot only..Ms. Doerr stated that there was no discussion in the Community Development Board Minutes of automotive repair, and there w~.s a recommendation for approval for the used car lot at this location. She further stated that the motion from the Minutes of the City Commission approved aUse-by-Exception only for a ysed car lot, which was .granted to Mr. Dukes only, and not the property, , . Ms. Doerr said that she could not find any records with regard to automotive repair in the permits file. She did find, however, that business licenses for automotive repair were issued between the years of 1992 and 1996 to two individuals who leased space from Mr. Dukes. Mr. Dukes stated he was sick during these times and these people took care of his customers. Ms. Doerr advised that Mr. Dukes has never had a license for auto repair, and the business licenses that were issued to him were for car sales only. Mr. Wolfson advised that there was no discussion of repair of vehicles in the Minutes of the Community Development Board meeting. He stated that if there were going to be additional uses with aUse-by-Exception, there are usually listed in the minutes. In addition, Mr. Wolfson noted that page 8 of the City Commission Minutes was missing which contained the discussion; page 9 contained the motion made, seconded and approved to grant the Use-by-Exception for a used car lot at 880 Mayport Road, that the Use-by-Exception be granted to Mr. William H. Dukes and not the property. Mr. Wolfson clarified with Mr. Dukes that, to his recollection, the discussion of automotive repairs occurred in page 8 of~the minutes. Mr. Dukes stated that this was correct. Mr. Wolfson asked Mr.~- Dukes what percentage of his business were automotive repairs? Mr. Dukes responded fifty percent. ~~ Ms. Doerr stated that this was a difficult-issue, since this area of Mayport Road has long been dominated by various automotive uses. At the same time, she stated that she felt that Mayport Road was changing, and this type of use did not seem to reflect the direction that the Community Development Board, the City Commission and others have expressed for where they would like to see Mayport Road go in the future. She-stated that every inch of this property was impervipus, so there was no real practical way to "pretty up" this property. However, Ms. Doerr stated that this was Mr. Dukes' living, the City has allowed him to operate for a number of years without taking any action, and the City had erroneously issued licenses to repair automobiles in the past. Mr. Wolfson asked how long a business license was effective. Mrs. Doerr responded that they are required to be renewed each year. She stated that the procedure currently in place requires that every application for a business license to go through her department for verification of proper zoning. She stated that she could not address how efficiently this was accomplished in 1992. Mr. Burkhart asked why Mr. Dukes required his lessees to obtain business licenses when he had never acquired a license for repairs. Mr. Dukes responded that this was for insurance purposes. Mr. Wolfson asked Mr. Dukes why he had never applied for a business license to repair vehicles. Mr. Dukes stated that he worked under the license of Neptune Auto Sales. 1Llinutes of June 17, 203 Regular 1Lleeting of Community Develop»sent Board Page 4 Mr. Frohwein asked Mr. Dukes if he owned this property. Mr. Dukes responded that he leased the property. Mr. Jenkins referred to staff's comments: "Automotive repair, particularly that whictl is occurring outdoors within view of Mayport Road, would appear to be in conflict with ongoing efforts to improve Mayport Road as well as inconsistent with the Commercial Corridor Standards (Section 24-171), which were adopted in January of this year." Mr. Jenkins asked if this was relevant to this discussion and was it required by the Code that the Community Development Board consider these efforts. Ms. Doerr asked Mr. Jenkins if he was asking whether or not there was express language in Chapter 24, other than the Comdor Standards, describing plans for Mayport Road and what the Community Development Board's responsibility to enforce those plans were. Ms. Doerr responded that Mayport Road yvas specifically addressed only within the new Comdor Standards of Chapter 24. She stated that there has been policy expressed by the City Commission related to the future and redevelopment of Mayport Road through their strategic planning process. This issue is a Commission priority. Mr. Jenkins asked if they were supposed to make decisions based on the Commission's intent for Mayport Road. Mr. Jacobson refereed to Sec. 24-63 (d), which outlines criteria when reviewing an application for aUse-by-Exception. Mr. Jacobson pointed sub-paragraph (3), "The potential for any adverse impacts to adjoining properties and properties generally in the area resulting from excessive noise, glare and lighting, odor, traffic and similar characteristics of the Usetby- Exception being requested. Mr. Wolfson referred to Chapter 14, Sec. 14-20, Powers and Duties of Community Development Board: The Community Development Board shall have the power, duty, responsibility and authority to: 1. Make recommendations to City Eommission for the physical, fiscal and aesthetic development of the city; 2. exercise supervisory control over planning and land use within the city .following the standards established by the City Commission pertaining to such planning and/or use regulation as contained in the ordinance for the City of Atlantic Beach, Florida; 3. and recommend to the City Commission proposed changes inland use regulation. Mr. Jenkins ~ asked Mr. Wolfson if it was his' opinion that the answer to whether the board shquld consider the Commission's intent was yes. Mr: ~ Wolfson responded yes, that Chapter 14 sets forth the establishment of the Board and-Chapter 24 is the ordinance for the zoning. Mr. Jenkins stated that he was not sure if the statement "...inconsistent with Commercial Corridor Standards..." was relevant to this case. Ms. Doerr stated that this property yeas inconsistent with the requirements of the new standards. However, she said that there was no requirement in those standards that property should be retrofitted; they are grandfathered, until they make some change that is subject to the regulations. She stated that when she was reviewing the application, she was hoping there was some way to mitigate the .appearance by buffering the landscaping. Mr. Jenkins stated that he was trying to determine if the intent of Sec. 24-71 was for new developments or new uses and, if so, that it was not applicable as a factor in this situation. If it was applicable, he stated that there was a pretty clear inconsistency. Discussion was held with regard to the clutter and undesirable appearance of the property. Mr. Dukes agreed that the appearance of the business was undesirable. He said that he was trying to make it more desirable, but he could not tear down the buiYding and build a new one. lllinutes of June 17, 2003 Regzrlar A~Ieeting of Community DevelopmentBoard Page S Mr. Frohwein asked the applicant if the Board were to grant the Use-by-Exception for a duration of time with contingencies of cleaning up the property with regard to clutter, how long would it take him to move to a different location or to make the location more suitable. Mr. Frohwein stated that he would like to see some consideration to allow the applicant reasonable time to clean up his business and allow him to relocate his business to a more acceptable location. Mr. Dukes responded that he would like to finish out his lease, which expires on December 07, 2004. A motion was made by Mr. Frohwein, seconded by Mrs. Walker, to recommend to the City Commission that this Use-by-Exception 'for automotive repair be granted until December 07, 2004, to this applicant only, and as a condition of granting this Use-by Exception, that the applicant clean up the site. Mr. Wolfson asked Mr. Frohwein for clarification of "clean up the site." Mr. Frohwein responded that he trusted the applicant. Mr. Burkhart asked if Mr. Frohwein was asking the applicant to comply with staff's request that repair work be performed indoors. Mr. Froh~yein responded no. Mr. Jenkins stated that he felt that it, was unreasonable to ask a tenant to make substantial improvements to a property if he was only going to be there for 18 months. Mr. Dukes asked if he could repair vehicles that he sells. Mr. Wolfson responded that he would prefer that repairs be made at another location. Mr.-Jacobson stated that he would like to see a reduction in the amount of vehicular congestion at the~ite. The vote was called and the motion passed by unanimous approval. b. ZVAR-2003-10, Raymond A. and Audrey R. Lackie.~ Request for a Variance from Section 24-106 (e) (2) to reduce the required twenty (20) foot rear yard to eight (S) fee~to allow for athree-story addition to the rear of an existing residence, for property within the RG1 Zoning District and located at 645 Ocean Boulevard. Mrs. Audrey Lackie introduced herself and' her husband; -Raymond Lackie. She informed the board that when they. purchased the duplex and moved in, they realized that this house could pot accommodate their household, which included her 83=year-old father. Therefore, she stated that they would like to build a 20-foot by 26-foot building on the south rear side of the property. She stated that their hardship was that the home was not large enough to accommodate their family. In addition, she stated that they needed to~ be able to access the home by driving into the garage for safety purposes. ~~~- ---- Discussion was held with regard to the height of the proposed structure. Mrs. Lackie advised that she understood that due to size of the-lot, the maximum height of the structure could be no higher than 28 feet. In response to questions from Mrs. Walker, Mrs. Lackie advised that it was their intentiop to make this structure asingle-family residence and her father would not have a separate apartment. She further advised that this addition would house a garage, a family room and a master bedroom. Mr. Wolfson clarified and Mrs. Lackie concurred, that their hardship was due to the fact that their lot was smaller than the normal size lot. Ms. Doerr advised that this was an exceptionally shallow lot and was referenced in the definition of a variance. 1Llinutes of June 17, 2003 Regular~Lleeting of Community Development Board Page 6 A motion was made by Mr. Jenkins, and seconded by Mr. Jacobson, to approve the variance request. Mr. Frohwein stated that he recognized that the lot was unusually small but did feel that, tl}ere was a reasonable use of the property in that the side yard setbacks were currently exceeded and the front yard was exceeded by one foot. Discussion was held with regard to the location of the garage and accessibility. Mrs. Lackie advised that she spoke with the architect who informed her that the 20 foot width for the garage was needed to allow enough room to access the garage after turning from the driveway. Mr. Wolfson expressed concern that the applicant was proposing athree-story building which would come within eight feet of the rear property line when their neighbor to the rear had a pool. He stated that the neighbors had a right to privacy. Mr. Wolfson stated that he felt that the variance might not be the minimum variance that would make possible the reasonable use of the land, building and structure. He stated that he thought the structure could be reduced in size end the Lackies could still get the benefits of the structure. The vote was called and Mr. Jacobson and Mr. Jenkins voted in favor of the motion, ~VIr. Burkhart, Ms. Drysdale, NIr. Frohwein, Mrs. Walker and Mr. Wolfson voted against the motion. The motion was denied. c. ZVAR-2003-11, David C. Kirsten: Request for a Variance from Section 24-~57 (c) to allow asix-foot fence to reniace an existing six-foot fence in the street side yard on a corner lot within the RS-2 Zoning District and located at 394 Ninth Street. Mrs. Mary Jo Kirsten introduced_.hersel~ .She_ advised_xhat_.they purchased_~his propert.3r in November and have accomplished- ma}or- renovations: She further advised- that when --they purchased the property, there was asix-foot privacy fence along Seminole Road. Discussion was held and it was determined that a variance was required to replace the force along Seminole Road. It was confirmed that the applicant could repair fifty percent of the fence along Seminole Road without requiring a variance. Mrs. Kirsten informed the board that the south end of the house is where the living areas are located and the entire south wall was glass. She stated that their property was different from other properties due to the close proximity to the five-way intersection where the police department and fire department are located. She also stated that safety and privacy were concerns. Mrs. Kirsten said that afour-foot fence would not be safe because someone could lift her grandchildren right over the fe{~ce. Mr. Wolfson asked Ms. Doerr if there was any record of a variance being granted for the current fence. Ms. Doerr responded that there was nothing in the record. Mr. David Kirsten introduced himself. He stated that there were three parts to their request: 1) the retaining wall which he understands the city was going to take care of; 2) replace the existing fence; and 3) extend the fence behind the tree and extend it to the walkway. ~Llinutes of.Tune 17, 2003 Regular 1Lleeting of C'ommuniry DevelopnrentBoard Puge 7 IV1s. Doerr conunented that, she thought there was excessive ~,~~~„ uuni the fre station and traffic. She also pointed out that the board granted a variance for sinular reasons to a property owner further north on Seminole Road. Mr. Burkhart stated that he was under the impression that Seminole Road was an 80-foot right- of-way, not a 50-foot right-of--way. In addition, he stated that there was a very wide green strip between the sidewalk and the property line. Mr. Burkhart added that he felt that the intent of the code with the requirement of 15-foot side yard on a corner lot was met by the approximate 15 feet of green between the sidewalk and the edge of the road. Mr. Frohwein proposed that the reasonable use of the property would be met by projecting the fence along the side of the house. Mr. Kirsten responded that they would lose a substagtial portion of their yard if they did this. --~ Mrs. Walker stated that she did not see any problem with replacing the fence but would have a groblem if the fence were increased. She stated that there were no windows along this area and it did not make sense to extend it around a blank wall. Mr. Kirsten responded that the fence would reduce noise to this area,, which included the family room and kitchen. Mr. Wolfson expressed concern with barriers and the possible changes to the ambiapce, community spirit and feeling of the neighborhood. - A motion was made by Mr. Burkhart, and seconded by Mrs. Walker, to approve the variance as explained in (a) and (b) in the attachment to the application. Board members expressed concern with regard to extending the fence. Mr. Jenkins reminded the board that they granted 'a variance for asix-foot fence atop afour-fAOt berm at a property located at the four-way stop at7-8`~' Street and Seminole Road: He- said that the reason it was peculiar was that it was situated so low. In this situation, he said the applicants have a hardship that is unique to this house and not the others because of the way it is situated. Mr. Jenkins stated that it was a hardship and~it was reasonable as a sound buffer to the home. A motion was made by Mr. Jacobson, and seconded by Mr. Burkhart, to amend the motion to approve the variance as explained in (a) in the attachment to the application. The vote was called and the motion passed with Mr. Burkhart, Ms. Drysdale, Mr. Jacobson, Mr. Jenkins, Mrs. Walker and Mr. Wolfson voting in favor of the motion, Mr. Frohwein voting against the motion. d. ZVAR-2003-12, Peter G. Durante. Request for a Variance from Section 24-105 ~e_) (1) and (2) to reduce the required twenty (20) foot rear and front yards to fifteen (15) feet to allow for an addition to the rear of the existing residence and to allow an exterior spiral staircase and an cantilevered oven balcony to encroach into the front yard a distance of 5 (five) feet within the RS-2 Zoning District end located at 417 Ocean Boulevard. (The applicant has requested that this item be continued until the July meeting.) Minartes of June 17, 2003 Regular ~Lleeting of Community Development Board Page 8 e. Discussion and consideration of proposed general revisions to Chapter 24. Ms. Doerr advised that the proposed revisions were to clarify issues that were subject to interpretation and incorporated citizen input. A short discussion was held and it was decided that a workshop was to be scheduled to discuss and consider the proposed revisions to Chapter 24. Ms. Doerr advised that on March 18, the Commission adopted the revisions to the Subdivision Regulations with no changes. 6. Adiournment There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m. ~~ SIGNED