Loading...
2003-09-16 (meeting minutes) vAGENDA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH Tuesday, September 16, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. City Hall Commission Chambers, 800 Seminole Road 1. Call to order and pledge of allegiance. 2. Approval of Minutes of the meeting of August 19, 2003. 3. Recognition of Visitors. 4. Old Business. a. ZVAR-2003-13, Kelly Manuel and Ron Mackoul. Request for a Variance from Section 24-105 (e) (2) to reduce the required twenty (20) foot rear yard to ten (10) feet to allow for the. construction of a detached one-car garage for property within the RS-2 Zoning District and located at 312 East Coast Drive. ~'ontinued pending proposed revisions to Chapter 24, which may impact the applicant's request. 5. New Business. a. UBE-2003-04, Merv and Theresa Russell. Request for aUse-by-EYCeption to allow various uses including general construction contractor, welding, fence assembly, electrical, air conditioning, plumbing and irrigation contractors, cabinet shop, warehousing and general assembly for a proposed new building to be located within the Commercial General (CG) Zoning District on Stock Street between West 14th Street and Levy Road. b. ZVAR-2003-15, Harriett James. Request for a Variance from Section 24-107 (e) (1) and (3) to reduce the required twenty (20) foot front yard to thirteen (13) feet and to reduce the required fifteen (15) foot side yard setback on a corner lot to twelve (12) feet to allow for the construction of asingle-family residence on a Nonconforming Lot of Record within the RG-2 Zoning District, described as Lot 6, Block 4, Ocean Grove Subdivision, Unit 1. c. ZVAR-2003-16, ~dtivard and Paige Beach. Request for a Variance from Section 24-105 (e) (2) to reduce the required twenty (20) foot rear yard to eight (8) feet to allow for the construction of a glass enclosure, for property within the RS2 Zoning District and located at 407 Seaspray Avenue. 6. Other Business. a. Discussion and recommendation regarding proposed revisions to Chapter 24. 7. 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 for such purpose, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the 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 contact 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 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF COlVLMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD September 16, 2003 A regular meeting of the Community Development Board was held on Tuesday, September 16, 2003, 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 and Pledge of Allegiance The meeting was called to order 7:00 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes of the Meetings of August 19, 2003 Mr. Frohwein requested the following changes to the Minutes: 1) S.b., Page 10: 1. Change as follows: "That a shared parking agreement, in accordance with the terms of Section 24-161,(e) (2) exist with the Shoppes of North Shore, or other property within 400 feet of the subject site, and that this be a mandatory requirement." A motion was made by Mr. Frohwein, seconded by Mr. Burkhart, and unanimously carried to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 19, 2003, as amended. 3. Recognition of Visitors None. 4. Old Business a. ZVAR-2003-13, Kelly Mannel and Ron Mackoul. Request for a Variance from Section 24- 105 (e) (2) to reduce the required twenty (20) foot rear yard to ten (10) feet to allow for the construction of a detached one-car garage for property within the RS-2 Zoning District and located at 312 East Coast Drive. Continued pending proposed revisions to Chapter 24, which maV impact the applicant's . 5. New Business. a. UBE-2003-04, Merv and Theresa Russell. Request for aUse-by-Exception to allow various uses including general construction contractor, welding, fence assembly; electrical, air conditioning, plumbing and irrigation contractors, cabinet shop, warehousing and general assembly for a proposed new building to he located within the Commercial General (CG) Zoning District on Stock Street between West 14th Street and Levu Road. Mr. Merv Russell introduced himself and stated that he purchased this property with the intent to build a warehouse with storage and office space. He advised that he planned to utilize part of the building for himself and lease the rest. In response to a question from Mr. Frohwein, Mr. Russell clarified that he did not want a body shop at this location but welding related to his fence company would occur inside the building. Mr. Frohwein stated that most of the requested uses were allowed for this property. However, he said that a Minutes of September 16, 2003 Regular Meeting of Community Development Board Page 2 Use-by-Exception for welding only occurred under the ILW zoning district and he understood that this board could not approve aUse-by-Exception for a welding shop. Ms. Doerr advised that the Community Development Board had recommended approval (and the Commission had approved) aUse-by-Exception for these same uses in Commercial General for this applicant in the past. Mr. Frohwein also stated that the Code did not allow fence assembly and general assembly at this location. Mr. Russell advised that in most cases finished materials come to the shop so he only had to assemble the products. He also advised that a lot of the work he did was light welding to make gate frames. Mr. Russell stated that he did not intend to put in a welding shop per se but would like to do some welding in the shop. Ms. Doerr stated that there is no language in the current zoning regulations that restricts Use-by- Exceptions to only those specifically listed businesses, but that there was language proposed within the revisions of Chapter 24 that are now under review to clarify this issue, and that these changes would make possible only those specifically listed uses. Mr. Frohwein responded that his interpretation was that the board generally granted Use-by-Exceptions only as listed in the code. Mr. Russell stated that his primary business was fencing and he made frames for the gate systems. Mr. Frohwein advised that he would be opposed to a welding shop in the CG district. Mr. Russell clarified that he did not intend to put in a welding shop and that he was not asking for a welding shop. Mr. Burkhart stated that the application should really request fence assembly with incidental light welding. He asked Mr. Russell if he would agree to revise his request. Mr. Russell responded that he would agree to that change. Mr. Jacobson asked Mr. Russell if the welding was limited to fencing. Mr. Russell responded that the welding was mostly related to fencing. In response to a question from Mr. Jenkins, Mr. Russell advised that he intended to perform all the work inside the building.. Mr. Jenkins stated that he drove by Mr. Russell's other facility and noted that Mr. Russell was not working outside that building. Mr. Jenkins noted that a contractor not requiring outside storage was something the Board might be able to consider. Mrs. Walker expressed concern with regard to approving uses for possible future tenants. Mr. Russell responded that all future tenants would have to apply for an occupational license and that he would. screen all applicants. He stated that he would not allow auto repair, paint shops or welding shops. Mr. Russell added that he had a painting company and a fencing company, which would require on-site assembly of custom fences only. Mr. Wolfson advised that on-site assembly would fall under Light Industrial. He further stated that storing chain link fence and verticals on site would fall under Limited Warehousing. Mr. Jacobson asked Mr. Russell how much of the building would he lease. Mr. Russell responded that the building would be approximately 7,200 square feet and he would rent out half of the building. In response to a question from Mr. Wolfson, Mr. Russell advised that he would place the dumpster Minutes of September 16, 2003 Regular Meeting of Community Development Board Page 3 on the ILW side of the building. Mr. Wolfson advised that CG was a buffer between ILW and residential. He stated that this block was CG and the south side of 14`j' Street West was residential. Mr. Wolfson expressed concern about light manufacturing located adjacent to RG-lA. He stated that if the board would be supportive, he would want to see that any potential light manufacturing businesses be located on the north side of the building and the CG businesses be located on the south side of the building. A motion was offered by Mr. Jenkins and seconded by Mr. Burkhart to recommend approval to the City Commission of the Use-by-Exception to allow Section 24-111(c)(6) and (c)(7) use with the following conditions: 1. All equipment, materials, and business activities be maintained within the enclosed building. 2. Lighting shall be directed on site, and shall not illuminate adjacent properties. 3. All business activities and commercial deliveries shall be limited to the hours between 6:00 am and 7:00 pm. Further discussion was held with regard to allowable uses and hours of operation. An amended motion was then made by Mr. Jenkins and seconded by Mr. Burkhart to: recommend approval to the City Commission of the Use-by-Exception subject to the following conditions: • Uses shall be limited to those as set forth within the Commercial General Zoning District ' regulations, Section 24-111: (c) (6) Contractor not requiring outdoor storage; (c) (7) Limited warehousing, and (c) (10) Cabinet shops; • All equipment, materials, and business activities shall be maintained within the enclosed building; , • Lighting shall be directed on site, and shall not illuminate adjacent properties.' • All business activities and commercial deliveries shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 am and 7:00 pm, Mondays through Saturdays only; and • Dumpster(s) shall be screened from view and shall be located on the north (Levy Road) side of the property. The vote was called and the motion passed by unanimous approval. b..ZVAR-2003-15, Harriett .Tames. Request for a Variance from Section 24-107 (e) (1) and (3 to reduce the required twenty (20) foot front yard to thirteen (13) feet and to reduce the required fifteen (15) foot side yard setback on a corner lot to twelve (12) feet to allow for the construction of asingle-family residence on a Nonconforming Lot of Record within the RG-2 Zoning District. described as Lot 6. Block 4. Ocean Grove Subdivision, Unit A. Mr. Clem Harper introduced himself. He advised that he was purchasing this property and it was currently under contract. He further advised that they wanted to build atwo-story structure that would not overwhelm the lot or exceed the 50 percent impervious surface requirement. Mr. Wolfson asked the applicant if these were the minimum requirements needed to build the home. Mr. Harper responded yes. He stated that the height of the home would be approximatley 30 feet and they would like to build decks on the side of the home. Minutes of September 16, 2003 Regular Meeting of Community Development Board Page 4 Mr. Charles Becky of 1660 Beach Avenue introduced himself. He stated that he knew the Harpers and would like to see them move into the neighborhood. He further stated that currently this was a vacant lot and it would be advantageous to everyone to allow this variance. Mrs. Andrea Harper introduced herself. She stated that they like space and cross breezes and would like to build anine-foot deck. She stated that this variance request was mostly for the deck which would be located on the north side of the house and would be covered. In addition, she stated that they would most likely have a deck at the front of the house for the entrance. Mrs. Harper stated that this request looks daunting on paper but it would not be all house. Mrs. Harriet James introduced herself and advised that she owns the property and she would like to sell it. Ms. Doerr advised that the applicants were aware of the height limit and that they could not build to 35 feet. Mr. Frank Marino introduced himself as Mrs. Harper's father. He advised that the footprint represented the maximum that they would want to be occupied by the house and the deck was located in the shaded area. Mr. Frohwein clarified with Ms. Doerr that her recommendation for approval required that the applicant maintain a 20-foot rear yard. He asked if this would be a line parallel to the 44.95 dimension line. Ms. Doerr responded yes. Mr. Frohwein asked the applicants if they understood that the recommendation by staff stated that the side yard setbacks total 12 feet with a minimum of five feet on any one side or six feet and six feet reduced from the 15 feet required for this zoning district, and that the front yard setback be reduced to 13 feet from 20 feet. Mr. Harper responded yes. Mr. Frohwein also clarified that any and all decks would occur within those setbacks. Mr. Wolfson stated that according to the application, the lot size was 3,935 square feet. He stated that the minimum lot size for Atlantic Beach was 5,000 square feet. Based on this, Mr. Wolfson calculated that the applicant had 78.7 percent of the minimum lot requirement of square footage. Mr. Wolfson further stated that according to Sectoin 24-82(c), the height that the applicants would be allowed to build without seeking a variance would be 27.5 feet. Mr. Harper stated that they would comply with that. A motion was made by Mr. Jacobson and seconded by Mrs. Walker to approve the variance subject to: 1) maximum fifty percent impervious surface limit; 2) maintenance of general parameters in drawing. Mr. Frohwein suggested that the motion be amended to reduce the combined side yard setbacks from 15 feet to a total of 12 feet with a minimum of five feet per side and reduce the front yard setback from 20 feet to 13 feet. An amended motion was made by Mr. Jacobson and seconded by Mrs. Walker to approve the variance subject to: 1) maximum fifty percent impervious surface limit; 2) maintenance of general parameters in drawing; Minutes of September 16, 2003 Regular Meeting of Community Development Board Page 5 3) reduce the combined side yard setbacks from 15 feet to a total of 12 feet with a minimum of five feet per side; 4) reduce the front yard setback from 20 feet to 13 feet. Mr. Burkhart suggested that the back yard be held to 20 feet to ensure that the applicant does not end up with a 24-foot rear yard and a 13-foot front yard. An amended motion was made by Mr. Jacobson and seconded by Mrs. Walker to approve the variance subject to: 1) maximum fifty percent impervious surface limit; 2) maintenance of general parameters in drawing; 3) reduce the combined side yard setbacks from 15 feet to a total of 12 feet with a minimum of five feet per side; 4) reduce the front yard setback from 20 feet to 13 feet; 5) maintain a 20-foot rear yard setback. Mr. Wolfson proposed that the applicant move the house back two feet. Mr. Burkhart stated that the applicant had a 60-foot right-of--way. Mrs. Harper stated that she did not think their house would be the closest house to the road. She stated that they would still be 20 feet from the actual road, if not more, because of where the property line began. Chair called the vote and the motion passed by unanimous approval. c. ZVAR-2003-16, Edward and Pare Beach: Request for a Variance from Section 24-105 (e) (2) to reduce the required twenty (20) foot rear yard to eight (8) feet to allow for the construction of a glass enclosure, for property within the RS2 Zoning District and located at 407 Seasprav Avenue. Mr. Edward Beach introduced himself and advised that he had originally wanted to build a second floor but due to problems with the stem wall, he could not. He advised that the special conditions that exist were: 1) that he cannot build up due to soil conditions and that engineering studies show that the stemwall has cracks due to the soil; 2) that it was peculiar to his lot since other people in Saltair have built up; 3) that this was the minimum variance; 4) the adjacent property, 403 Seaspray, has the identical footprint, i.e., the same 50 x 100 lot, but a variance was granted to build a 12 x 16 screened porch on slab. He stated that he was not asking for anything other than that which his next door neighbor had. He advised that the neighbor to the west had signed a letter stating that he had no objection, he would not be infringing on other property since the addition would be on the back and cannot be seen by neighbors, and he backs up to Howell Park. Mr. Wolfson stated that Mr. Beach referred to the soil as a potential problem since he could not go vertical, total enjoyment of the rear yard was limited and the mosquito population was tremendous which disallowed sitting outside at the rear of the house. Mr. Jenkins asked the applicant if soil testing had been done on adjacent properties. He stated that he was trying to confirm if Mr. Beach's soil differs from that of his neighbors. Mr. Beach responded that the topography of his lot was sloping. He advised that his lot was 3.5 cinderblocks high on the west side and on the ground level on the east side, and the stemwall was cracked. Minutes of September 16, 2003 Regular Meeting of Community Development Board Page 6 Mr. Jenkins asked staff if there was any precedent set that granted a variance simply because a neighbor was granted a variance. Ms. Doerr responded that there was no precedent, that every application should be considered on its own merits. Mr. Wolfson stated that there was nothing in the reports that stated Mr. Beach could not build vertical; it stated that he could build but that the site would need to be prepared to support vertical construction. Mr. Beach responded that there was a comment to the fact that the cracks had widened and that he had two recommendations to fix the existing one story structure. Mr. Wolfson stated that he wanted to clarify that the applicant was not precluded from creating a vertical strucure, that he could probably prepare the site to support the vertical to look like it was being supported by the house but it would be supported otherwise. Mr. Frohwein advised that he read two of the three engineering reports. He stated that with regard to supporting the existing structure, the soil could be removed. He asked Mr. Beach if he had asked the engineer of record if a second story foundation could be supported by removing and replacing the soil. Mr. Beach responded that he did not talk with the engineer since he was not his client. Mr. Frohwein stated that recognizing that this was in a marshy area and that it was a unique area, he thought the original builder should have removed and replaced the unsuitable soils at that time. Mr. Frohwein asked Mr. Beach if he had explored pricing for the removal and replacement of soil. Mr. Beach responded that he had not because of advice given to him by professionals. Mr. Wolfson asked why the proposed structure was 25 feet long and 12 feet wide. Mr. Beach responded that they were building from the northeast corner to the sliding glass door so that another door would not have to be added and because it was farthest from the neighbor. Mr. Wolfson asked why it was not just a screened porch. Mr. Beach stated that they wanted to be able to use the room year-round. He stated that this room would not be heated and cooled but they could open the doors and have regular use of it. Mr. Wolfson asked what room was immediately adjacent to this sturcure on the noretheast corner of the home. Mr. Beach advised that it was a greatroom. Mr. Wolfson stated that the room could be reduced to 16 feet if Mr. Beach built it from the other side. Mr. Burkhart informed Mr. Beach that he was coming exceptionally close to the impervious requirements. He asked Mr. Beach if he had figured out the impervious calculations. Mr. Beach stated that he had not. Ms. Doerr stated that she did not have any construction plans to examine. In addition, she clarified that a variance could be approved by the board but then disapproved by the Building Department due to impervious surface requirements. A motion was made by Mr. Jenkins and seconded by Ms. Drysdale to deny the variance request. Ms. Walker stated that due to the fact that it backs up to the park, she would have no problem with approving the variance request. Mr. Jenkins stated that his motion to deny was based on clear requirements that the board has to to consider with regard to a variance and Mr. Beach's situation did not lend itself to enabling the board to grant this variance. Mr. Jacobson expressed that by all normal considerations this would be a request without consideration.. However, he stated that the request had hope in that the purpose of the 20-foot Minutes of September 16, 2003 Regular Meeting of Community Development Board Page 7 setback in the rear is to keep people from crowding into each other and to keep something of a tone of non-density in the community. Mr. Jacobson stated that the 20-foot setback was almost meaningless because there was not going to be any development in the park. Ms. Drysdale advised that her main concern was that it did not appear to be the minimum variance. She stated that Howell Park is a park and that it needed to be protected. Mr. Burkhart advised Mr. Beach that by "doing the math," it appeared that the home and driveway exceeded the impervious surface requirements. Mr. Burkhart suggested that Mr. Beach withdraw the request. Mr. Wolfson stated that he had a problem with the size of the request. Mr. Jacobson suggested that the applicant withdraw the request to determine impervious surface which would determine if he needed to reduce the size of the structure. Mr. Beach withdrew his variance request. Mr. Jenkins withdrew the motion at the applicant's request. 6. Other Business. a. Discussion and consideration of proposed revisions to Chapter 24. Ms. Doerr explained to the board that the City Commission and City Manager requested that she determine the origin of the 25-foot height limit in the Central Business District. She advised that Mr. Wolfson shared information that it was determined that three-story construction would over- power the existing mass and scale of Town Center. Ms. Doerr stated that this issue was being brought back to the board to possibly allow something other than that of an enclosed habitable space to exceed 25 feet. She further stated that she proposed some language for consideration and would be interested in the board's thoughts. Mr. Jenkins stated that this was a complex issue, that on the surface it sounded like it was in character and it would be good for smokers. However, he stated this could have potential problems and that the board should look into this further. Mr. Wolfson advised that previously the board, even though they were not charged with it, thought it might be interesting to expand the Town Center concept from where it ends now all the way to Sailfish Drive. He stated that they thought that they might be able to encourage future boards and future residents to take it upon themselves to brick the walk and expand the lighting, especially in light of the medians that were planted. He further stated that when they talked about the business district, they noticed that it was adjacent to residential neighborhoods and felt that they would not want buildings at a height of 35 feet because it could be overbearing to the residential neighborhoods. Mr. Frohwein stated that he was considering that it might be beneficial to make it more stringent such as two stories not to exceed 25 feet and one story with roof deck not to exceed 25 feet. Mr. Burkhart stated that he would like a maximum of 25 feet but was okay with non-occupied architectural features going higher. Minutes ofSeptem6er 16, 2003 Regular Meeting of Community Development Board Page 8 Mrs. Wallcer, Mr. Wolfson, Mr. Jenkins, Mrs. Drysdale and Mr. Jacobson requested that the height limit remain at 25 feet. Mr. Wolfson requested that the board defer revisions to Chapter 24 to another workshop. 7. Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m. SIGNED